Title | ||
---|---|---|
Narrative description(Describe the inactivation scenario in a few lines) | The concept is considered to be ambiguous when there is the potential for a user to interpret the meaning in more than one way. This may arise due to inherent conflict between or within the descriptions, where the modelling of the concept does not reflect the meaning of the FSN or where the | |
Details(Provide specifics about the scenario to support comparison to other scenarios) | What is being inactivated (concept/description/any component)? | The concept |
What is the reason for inactivation (description)? | Ambiguity may be apparent for a number of reasons:
| |
Which inactivation value should be used? | ... | |
Which historical association reference set should be used? | ... | |
Known issues(Describe any issues that may occur for this scenario and which may complicate interpretation of the inactivation) |
| |
Examples | Simple Example | |
Complex Example | ||
Erroneous Example | ||
Impact(Describe how specific stakeholders are affected by the inactivation) |
| |
| ||
| ||
| Impact depends upon: 1. If the end user agrees the component is ambiguous then management i 2. If the end user disagrees that the component is erroneous, then a suitable replacement SNOMED component is needed. This can pose a problem. 3. Including the exact reason the component is determined to be erroneous would help the end user reconcile the inactivation. | |
Potential improvement(Provide an indication of whether the current inactivation mechanism for this scenario is sufficient, or provide your ideas or thoughts on potential improvements) | ||
Supporting resources(Provide links to any resources relevant for this scenario) | <url> | <comment> |