Meeting Schedule
Create Meeting Page
SCOPE/FOCUS
Working towards consistency in representing PaLM observable entity content between member countries for interoperability
- The terminology modelling similarities and differences and align our representations – which attribute-value relationships and why?
- The editorial principles for development and design of PaLM content to disseminate to member countries
- Use-cases include – representing cell populations; genotypes; catalytic activity
The more complex lab reportables that are challenging to represent in the logic of the observables concept model
- Use-cases and semantic overlaps between terminology systems we are trying to represent consistently
- The scope and analytics requirement to represent the more complex test results in machine-readable logic
- Are there limitations in the observable entity concept model we need to consider?
- Editorial principles – the logical definition equating to the lexical description
- Use-cases include – fractions and ratios between two specimen types; multiple axes of scale type and data type e.g. reporting a semi-quantitative result of a ratio; semi-quantitative vs more qualitative representations
The representation of the component hierarchies used to define PaLM observable entity concepts
- The quality of the component hierarchies including properties, specimens and substances to enable accurate automated classification of the observable entity hierarchies
- Is the property hierarchy accurately representing the metrology of data types and scale types?
- Is there a confusion in the property hierarchies over scale types and data types limiting the capability to represent comparable, reproducible, and computable test results? quantitative, semi-quantitative and qualitative VS Nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio?
- Do we need to revisit the very notion of a ‘property’ in the context of SNOMED CT and OWL properties that define concepts logically in accordance with metrology representation?