You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.
Compare with Current
View Page History
« Previous
Version 10
Next »
Date: 2019-04-08
1330-1700 UTC
Date: 2019-04-09
0900-1230 UTC
Attendees
Chair:
AG Members
AG Subgroup chairs
Meeting recording
The folder containing the meeting recordings is located here.
The recording for this meeting is located here.
Discussion items
Item | Description | Time | Owner | Notes and Discussion | Action |
---|
April 8, 2019 |
1 | Call to order and role call Notice of recording Conflicts of Interest | 1330 - 1332h | | |
|
| Agenda review and approval | 1332 - 1335h | Jim Case |
| |
| ECE Update | 1335 - 1420h | Bruce Goldberg | |
|
| Clinical content "Sources of truth" | 1420 - 1500h | | |
|
| Break | 1500 - 1530h |
|
|
|
| Product role discussion | 1530 - 1600h | Toni Morrison |
|
|
| Device project introduction | 1600 - 1615h | Toni Morrison |
|
|
| Historical association refset | 1615 - 1700h | | - Consideration of addition of "Withdrawn"
- 2.3.10.1 Concept Inactivation
- From prior discussion, things you can say about an inactivated concept
- 1..1 exact match - SAME AS
- 1..X same as one or more concepts - MAY BE
- Subtype of - WAS A
- What is the use case for REPLACED BY? For erroneous concepts, out of date concepts? Does it provide additional value to make this distinction?
- SAME AS: A = B, B = A
- REPLACED BY: A <> B ?
- Need to ensure that the semantic granularity is similar for "replacement" concepts.
- How do we ensure consistent usage? Tooling currently constrains associations allowed for specific inactivation types
- Do AMBIGUOUS concepts require 2..X MAY BE historical relationships?
- MOVED TO and MOVED FROM needs to reflect RF2 structures (i.e. modules as opposed to namespaces)
- WAS A relationships can be constructed from the release files
- Are additional historical relationships needed to fill gaps in retrieval or analysis?
- Concepts inactivated without a historical relationship (i.e. non-conformance to editorial policy) have an implied WAS A
- Three aspects need to be considered:
- Consistent historical relationship assignment by authors
- Guidance for users to correctly use these relationship
- From a QA perspective, cleanup of existing relationship to improve internal consistency
- Should this be partially addressed by derivatives?
|
|
| Adjourn | 1700h |
|
|
|
April 8, 2019 |
| Call to order and role call Notice of recording Conflicts of Interest | 0900 - 0905h | Jim Case |
|
|
| Resolving the finding/disorder conundrum | 0905 - 1030h | | Background document:
|
|
| Break | 1030 - 1100h |
|
|
|
| Proposed SNOMED CT Content Strategy | 1100 - 1230h | Jim Case | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|