Summary
The CMAG is being asked to contribute to the discussion on additional description types, in particular what additional description types would be required by extensions. Links on the discussions to date and the planned discussion at the next Editorial Advisory Group meeting are provided below.
Examples of potential extension use cases may include:
- Search terms - colloquial terms
- "Patient-friendly" or consumer terminology
- Abbreviations/truncation
Current description types:
- Fully Specified Name
- Synonym (includes the preferred term)
- Definition
Would you please add your comments below in the discussion section as well as the particular requirements for your country in the country response section.
Relevant documents
Links:
2019-10-28 Editorial Advisory Group Face-to-face Meeting - Kuala Lumpur -see item 9. Use of hypernyms as descriptions
2020-04-06 Editorial Advisory Group Conference call
Actions:
Date | Requested action | Requester(s) | Response required by: | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 March 2020 | Input on additional description types |
| Please post your final responses in the Country response table below. Discussion comments can be made as comments below. |
Country response
| Country | Date | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 2020-03-23 | We already have language reference sets, which is a powerful tool to specify description use contexts such as (potentially) patient friendly/common language terms, speciality terms. Linguistic variants (abbreviations, singular/plural forms, some derivations) we would (mostly) consider as acceptable synonyms. We are still in the process of finding out what constitutes over use of language reference sets. "Search terms" we assume are generally not (true enough) synonyms and thus might require a new description type OR a new acceptability value and a slight(?) re-interpretation of what 900000000000013009 | Synonym (core metadata concept) | means. |
| Australia | 2020-03-24 | Very similar approach to Sweden. Abbreviations are already supported and editorial guidance exists. I could see a "patient friendly" synonym type being viable for when the same synonym will apply to a large number of specific concepts. And patient doesn't "need" to know that that much detail. "Patient-friendly" terms are inherently "lossy" - reduced detail. I'm not sure about the value of truncation? We create a lot of synonyms, specifically aimed at a consistent search experience. As an aside, we've been informed by a clinician that we're in a (quote) "post mellitus" world, and "Diabetes" is an appropriate/preferrable synonym to "Diabetes mellitus". We're in looking into how we'll action this. |
| Member countries without a CMAG rep |
CMAG response
| Date | CMAG Response | Next steps |
|---|---|---|
Final outcome:
Date: