Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 4 Next »

Date

13 June 2019

Previous Meeting - Next Meeting

Agenda


Item / Topic

Presenter

Description

Continue review of proposed extensions to Item Definition metamodelStephen White (Unlicensed)Walk through metamodel proposal
Discuss use of MDMI (if we have examples to look at)@Ken LordHow does MDMI help with links to ontologies and sources of truth

Participants

Goals

List goals for this meeting (e.g., Set design priorities for FY19):

  • Address any Situational Data Requirements from the Field Guide and OMG Meetings

  • Discussion all comments on the Item Definition update proposal

  • Update document as appropriate
  • Identify next steps

Notes (raw)

TBD

Chat Log

1:30 PM

Claude Nanjo (to All):
A few comments on the diagram: (1) the address field should contain the formal snomed concept URI rather than the link to the browser view. (2) the address should be a URI that contains both the code and the version of the concept/value set or a separate field should be added to support version.

1:33 PM
Claude Nanjo (to All):

'Name' is tricky. Does it refer to the name of the class or the name of the concept. If the latter, at least for SNOMED, it could be either the Fully Specified Name (FSN) or a synonym of the concept within a language.


1:34 PM
Claude Nanjo (to All):
You might want to consider the following labels for the following attributes:
1:34 PM
To All:
Ok. I'll look at using the appropriate URI
1:34 PM
Claude Nanjo (to All):
name - display name
1:34 PM
Claude Nanjo (to All):
codeSystem - concept namespace
1:34 PM
To All:
The name is a user-defined name
1:34 PM
Claude Nanjo (to All):
Okay
1:34 PM
Claude Nanjo (to All):
address - concept URI
1:35 PM
Claude Nanjo (to All):
It would make it a little more general. Also the URI may not always be a navigable URL.
1:35 PM
To All:
ok
1:37 PM
Claude Nanjo (to All):
Steve, here is a reference for SNOMED. This format wil be different for different terminologies which may make a case for a separate version field in case it is not always part of the URI of the concept/value set for that terminology:
1:37 PM
Claude Nanjo (to All):
https://confluence.ihtsdotools.org/display/DOCURI/2.3+Version-Relative+Component+URIs
1:37 PM
To All:
ok. thanks
1:40 PM
Ken Rubin (to All):
I am supportive of SOLOR and note the value of that terminology binding. Want to make sure that the fundamental work we are doing around semantic binding is not prescriptive about any particular terminology.
1:43 PM
Claude Nanjo (to All):
We are really talking about (1) the binding of a structure to a concept in an ontology or (2) the binding to a set of concepts in an ontology. The former may be a special case of the latter.
1:44 PM
Claude Nanjo (to All):
The ontology/terminology could be any ontology really.
1:45 PM
Claude Nanjo (to All):
Version is tricky too. It could refer to the version of a specific set (e.g., Beta-blocker meds) within a specific ontology or to the version of the ontology itself that is being referenced.
2:04 PM
Claude Nanjo (to All):
Need to drop off but would like to talk more about the SemanticReference. I have some concrete examples we should discuss to better understand this.

Action items

Add action items to close the loop on open questions or discussion topics:

  • enter action item

Meeting Recording


  • No labels