| | |
|---|
Welcome and agenda | | - Boolean to be added to SCG, ECL, STS and ETL
- SCG & ECL - See draft syntax
- STS & ETL - Use abbreviation "bool"
| | URIs | | - Summary of discussions in Malaysia
- Project group was asked to review WIP updates to URI proposal
- Consistent structure and examples added to each URI page
- New proposal on URIs for languages and language instances
- New proposal on URIs for modelling resources e.g. valueSet, fhirStructureDefinition, openEHRArchetype
- Agreed format
| Expression Templates | | - Summary of discussions in Malaysia
Examples: - ReferencedComponentId
- Name
- Version
- Domain of template - ECL where template should be applied
- Template itself - ETL
- Additional rules
- Mandatory / optional
Examples: [[+id]]: [[+id]]: [[1..*] @my_group sameValue(morphology)] { |Finding site| = [[ +id (<<123037004 |Body structure (body structure)| MINUS << $site[! SELF ] ) @site ]] , |Associated morphology| = [[ +id @my_morphology ]] } - Implementation feedback on draft updates to Expression Template Language syntax
- Use cases from the Quality Improvement Project:
- Multiple instances of the same role group, with some attributes the same and others different. Eg same morphology, potentially different finding sites.
Note that QI Project is coming from a radically different use case. Instead of filling template slots, we're looking at existing content and asking "exactly how does this concept fail to comply to this template?" For discussion: | Scg expression |
|---|
[[0..1]] { [[0..1]] 246075003 |Causative agent| = [[+id (< 410607006 |Organism|) @Organism]] } |
Is it correct to say either one of the cardinality blocks is redundant? What are the implications of 1..1 on either side? This is less obvious for the self grouped case. Road Forward for SI- Generate the parser from the ABNF and implement in the Template Service
- User Interface to a) allow users to specify template at runtime b) tabular (auto-completion) lookup → STL
- Template Service to allow multiple templates to be specified for alignment check (aligns to none-off)
- Output must clearly indicate exactly what feature of concept caused misalignment, and what condition was not met.
Additional note: QI project is no longer working in subhierarchies. Every 'set' of concepts is selected via ECL. In fact most reports should now move to this way of working since a subhierarchy is the trivial case. For a given template, we additionally specify the "domain" to which it should be applied via ECL. This is much more specific than using the focus concept which is usually the PPP eg Disease. FYI Michael Chu | | Description Templates | Kai Kewley | - Summary of discussions in Malaysia
- Overview of current use
- Review of General rules for generating descriptions
- Removing tags, words
- Conditional removal of words
- Automatic case significance
- Generating PTs from target PTs
- Reordering terms
- Mechanism for sharing general rules - inheritance? include?
- Description Templates for translation
- Status of planned specification
| | Expression Constraint Language | | - Agreement in Malaysia - ECL will add the following term searching syntax (no regex - just wild card and word prefix any order):
{{ term = - Review scope and syntax of previous internal implementation (Kai Kewley )
- Recap where we were up to with adding term-searches to ECL (see below)
Previous discussions Syntax {{ term = [ termSearchType : ] "String", languageCode = [langCode] }} Term Search Type - Wild Card Match (collation) - e.g.
- {{ term = wild:"*heart*“ }}
- {{ term = wild (sv):"*hjärta*“ }}
Regex - e.g.
- {{ term = regex:".*heart.*” }}
- Word Prefix Any Order - e.g.
- {{ term = match:“hear att” }}
- Default (word prefix any order) - e.g.
- {{ term = "hear att" }}
- {{ term = "*heart*“ }}
Potential Examples - << 64572001|Disease| {{ term= “heart”}}
- << 64572001|Disease| {{ term= “heart”, languageCode = "en"}}
- << 64572001|Disease| {{ term= “heart”, languageCode = "en"}} AND << 64572001|Disease| {{ term= “hjärta”, languageCode = "sv"}}
- << 64572001|Disease| {{ term= “heart”, languageCode = "en"}} {{ term= “hjärta”, languageCode = "sv"}}
- << 64572001|Disease| {{ term= “heart”, languageCode = "en"}} OR << 64572001|Disease| {{ term= “hjärta", languageCode = "sv"}}
- << 64572001|Disease| {{ (term= “heart”, languageCode = "en") OR (term= “hjärta", languageCode = "sv")}}
- (<< 64572001|Disease|: |Associated morphology| = *) {{ term= “heart”, languageCode = "en", }}{{ term= “hjärta", languageCode = "sv"}}
- (<< 64572001|Disease| {{ term= “*cardio*” }}) MINUS (<< 64572001|Disease| {{ term != “*heart*” }})
- Recommendation to be made on (based on investigation of grammar):
- << 64572001|Disease| {{ term= “heart”, languageCode = "en"}} AND{{ term= “hjärta”, languageCode = "sv"}}
- << 64572001|Disease| ( {{ term= “heart”, languageCode = "en"}} OR {{ term= “hjärta”, languageCode = "sv"}} )
- << 64572001|Disease| ( {{ term= “heart”, languageCode = "en"}} MINUS{{ term= “hjärta”, languageCode = "sv"}} )
Use Cases - Intentionally define a reference set for chronic disease. Starting point was ECL with modelling; This misses concepts modelled using the pattern you would expect. So important in building out that reference set.
- Authors quality assuring names of concepts
- Checking translations, retranslating. Queries for a concept that has one word in Swedish, another word in English
- AU use case would have at most 3 or 4 words in match
- Consistency of implementation in different terminology services
- Authoring use cases currently supported by description templates
- A set of the "*ectomy"s and "*itis"s
Questions - Do we include 'typeId' - e.g. << 64572001|Disease| {{ D.term= “*heart*”, typeId = 900000000000013009 |Synonym| }}
- Do we include 'type' - e.g. << 64572001|Disease| {{ D.term= “*heart*”, D.type= synonym }}
- Do we include 'languageCode' - e.g. << 64572001|Disease| {{ D.term= “*heart*”, D.type= synonym, D.languageCode = “en” }}
- Do we include 'caseSignificanceId' - e.g. << 64572001|Disease| {{ D.term= “*Heart*”, D.caseSignificanceId= 900000000000017005 |case sensitive|}}
- Do we include 'caseSignificance' - e.g. << 64572001|Disease| {{ D.term= “*Heart*”, D.caseSignificance = sensitive }}
- Do we include 'language' and 'version' - e.g. << 64572001|Disease| {{ term = “*heart*” }}VERSION = http://…, LANGUAGE = (999001881000000108|Gastro LRS|, |GB English|)
- Do we include syntactic sugar - e.g.
- << 64572001|Disease| {{ preferredTerm= “*heart*”, languageRefSet = en-gb}}
- << 64572001|Disease| {{ fullySpecifiedTerm = “*heart*”, languageRefSet=en-gb}}
- << 64572001|Disease| {{ acceptableTerm = “*heart*”, languageRefSet = en-gb}}
- << 64572001|Disease|{{ preferredTerm= “*heart*”}} FROM version = X, language = Y
- NO
- Do we use/require the "D" at the start of "term"?
- Packaging - How do we package this extension to ECL
- A new version of ECL - version 1.5
| | Maps and History | | Recap discussions in Malaysia regarding querying historical patient records - e.g . 2.0 (or 1.4?) → same specification documentAn optional extension to ECL for SNOMED authors/content developers - e.g. ECL++ / ECLv1.3++ → An appendix on the ECL document? (with Filter Language) A subset/profile of the Query Language → A separate document that defines SNOMED filters, which can be added to any version of ECLFilter LanguageFind all patients with a respiratory disease in the last 10 years. Do we include patients whose records contain |Recurrent chest infection|? (an inactive concept) Solutions suggested include: - Multiple queries - Either run multiple queries against successive releases of SNOMED CT and collate results OR look at the latest snapshot before the given concept was inactivated.
- Use historical associations - Either create map from inactive to active concepts, OR update EHR to replace inactive concepts with active ones
- Enhanced transitive closure table - Create an ETCT containing inactive concepts as their last known position
- Augmented solution - Check the position of each replacement to determine concepts inactivated due to wrong placement
Proposed syntax to support execution of maps (Outstanding question: ECL or Query Language? Scope and packaging needs further discussion) | | Returning attributes | Michael Lawley | Proposal from Michael: - Currently ECL expressions can match (return) concepts that are either the source or the target of a relationship triple (target is accessed via the 'reverse' notation or 'dot notation', but not the relationship type (ie attribute name) itself.
For example, I can write: << 404684003|Clinical finding| : 363698007|Finding site| = <<66019005|Limb structure| << 404684003|Clinical finding| . 363698007|Finding site| But I can't get all the attribute names that are used by << 404684003|Clinical finding| - Perhaps something like:
- ? R.type ? (<< 404684003 |Clinical finding|)
- This could be extended to, for example, return different values - e.g.
- ? |Simple map refset|.|maptarget| ? (^|Simple map refset| AND < |Fracture|)
| Query Language
- Summary from previous meetings
| | Examples: version and dialect Notes
- Allow nested where, version, language
- Scope of variables is inner query
|
| Examples: where Notes - Allow nested variable definitions, but recommend that people don't due to readability
- Scope of variables is the inner query
- No recursion e.g X WHERE X = 1234 MINUS X
- ie can't use a variable in its own definition
- ie X is only known on the left of the corresponding WHERE, and not on the right of the WHERE
| Keywords for Term-based searching: - D.term
- D.term = "*heart*"
- D.term = wild:"*heart*"
- D.term = regex:".*heart.*"
- D.term = match:"hear att"
- D.term = (sv) wild: "*heart*"
- D.languageCode
- D.languageCode = "en"
- D.languageCode = "es"
- D.caseSignificanceId
- D.caseSignificanceId = 900000000000448009 |entire term case insensitive|
- D.caseSignificanceId = 900000000000017005 |entire term case sensitive|
- D.caseSignificanceId = 900000000000020002 |only initial character case insensitive|
- D.caseSignificance
- D.caseSignificance = "insensitive"
- D.caseSignificance = "sensitive"
- D.caseSignificance = "initialCharInsensitive"
- D.typeId
- D.typeId = 900000000000003001 |fully specified name|
- D.typeId = 900000000000013009 |synonym|
- D.typeId = 900000000000550004 |definition|
- D.type
- D.type = "FSN"
- D.type = "fullySpecifiedName"
- D.type = "synonym"
- D.type = "textDefinition"
- D.acceptabilityId
- D.acceptabilityId = 900000000000549004 |acceptable|
- D.acceptabilityId = 900000000000548007 |preferred|
- D.acceptability
- D.acceptability = "acceptable"
- D.acceptability = "preferred"
Additional Syntactic Sugar - FSN
- FSN = "*heart"
- D.term = "*heart", D.type = "FSN"
- D.term = "*heart", D.typeId = 900000000000003001 |fully specified name|
- FSN = "*heart" LANGUAGE X
- D.term = "*heart", D.type = "FSN", D.acceptability = * LANGUAGE X
- D.term = "*heart", D.typeId = 900000000000003001 |fully specified name|, acceptabilityId = * LANGUAGE X
- synonym
- synonym = "*heart"
- D.term = "*heart", D.type = "synonym"
- D.term = "*heart", D.typeId = 900000000000013009 |synonym|
- synonym = "*heart" LANGUAGE X
- D.term = "*heart", D.type = "synonym", D.acceptability = * LANGUAGE X
- D.term = "*heart", D.typeId = 900000000000013009 |synonym|, (D.acceptabilityId = 900000000000549004 |acceptable| OR D.acceptabilityId = 900000000000548007 |preferred|) LANGUAGE X
- synonymOrFSN
- synonymOrFSN = "*heart"
- synonym = "*heart" OR FSN = "*heart"
- D.term = "*heart", (D.type = "synonym" OR D.type = "fullySpecifiedName")
- synonymOrFSN = "*heart" LANGUAGE X
- synonym = "*heart" OR FSN = "*heart" LANGUAGE X
- D.term = "*heart", (D.type = "synonym" OR D.type = "fullySpecifiedName"), D.acceptability = * LANGUAGE X
- textDefinition
- textDefinition = "*heart"
- D.term = "*heart", D.type = "definition"
- D.term = "*heart", D.typeId = 900000000000550004 |definition|
- textDefinition = "*heart" LANGUAGE X
- D.term = "*heart", D.type = "definition", D.acceptability = * LANGUAGE X
- D.term = "*heart", D.typeId = 900000000000550004 |definition|, D.acceptabilityId = * LANGUAGE X
- Unacceptable Terms
- (D.term = "*heart") MINUS (D.term = "*heart", D.acceptability = * LANGUAGE X)
| Language preferences using multiple language reference sets LRSs that use the same Language tend to use 'Addition' - i.e. child LRS only includes additional acceptable terms, but can override the preferred term E.g. Regional LRS that adds local dialect to a National LRS E.g. Specialty-specific LRS E.g. Irish LRS that adds local preferences to the en-GB LRS
LRSs that define a translation to a different language tend to use 'Replacement' - i.e. child LRS replaces set of acceptable and preferred terms for any associated concept
| | Next steps | | - Discuss and plan next steps
| | Confirm next meeting date/time | |
|
|