Welcome and introductions

@Peter Williams

@Rob Hausam

Recording, notes & attendance.

Inclusion of HL7 (@Rob Hausam) and SI (@Jane Millar) working group representatives.

Swapping weeks when missing a week eg July 24 - (ask this on the TB stream also).

Summary of previous week

@Peter Williams

@Rob Hausam

• 2018-06-05 - SNOMED on FHIR Meeting (TB)

Zulip discussion on Post Coordinated expressions

50

@Dion McMurtrie

Summary: Expressions filter on CodeSystem Resource - Dion asked Graham about origin of these two items. GG clarified true = permit PCE eg for use in validate-code and similarly for expand. Default = true also. Suggested that expand call should then return every possible post coordinated expression (!!) which is a) hard and b) probably not useful. Such expressions could be available if an expression library had been implemented. However, validate code should handle arbitrary PCEs since this will be a finite set. Note that people do post coordination for other code systems eg UCUM and MIME.

Suggestions:

• Possible useful use case in calculating lateralized expressions

• Principle could be applied that in general SNOMED Pre and Post coordinated expressions should be interchangeable.

• Incomplete response should be labelled as such.

• That we should return "published" content, which might include post coordinated content in some cases. ML suggested "at least" this content.

• We could make a statement in the "Using SNOMED with FHIR" page. Clarify with the HL7 Vocabulary group.

Questions

• cIn the "membership" query, does a PCE that is equivalent to a pre-coordinated that is part of the value set match? RH: If the value set says that PCE is included, then yes it should handle that.

$validate-code behaviour

20

@Dion McMurtrie

Current behaviour doesn't allow for distinction to be made in responding to quality of term queried.

Note: Since server returns display term, if the query just checks for membership then the client could check its term against that returned. This waters down the usefulness of the server but would simplify if functionality is not in the 80% of features required.

See GForge issue #17218 (ML's). Also #16586.

See also https://chat.fhir.org/#narrow/stream/48-terminology/subject/Validation.20for.20foreign.20language.20resources

Main item for discussion

60

@Dion McMurtrie

SNOMED CT Canonical CodeSystem resource

• Review and attempt to resolve detail questions

• Issue around extensions and what this CodeSystem resource actually represents

Current items

@Dion McMurtrie

• SNOMED CT "Universal" Edition

  • Definitely useful to have a catalogue of all concepts ever issued if not a proper edition which may be much harder?

  • Is this work for this group, or should this be handed on to a more appropriate SI group?

• Check and fix ECL in the FHIR spec

  • Is there a way to systematically identify all ECL expressions in the FHIR spec?

  • If we run these through validation is there appetite/volunteers to review and fix them as feedback to the spec?

  • Is there a way to integrate ECL validation into the FHIR spec tooling to prevent recurrence?

• Normal form and normal form terse definition

• @Former user (Deleted) to progress defining Terse Normal Form with the Family of Languages group (@Rob Hausam confirms needed for July)

  • SLPG agreed that the Languages group is not the appropriate forum for this definition. Instead, we believe this should be defined in the DL subgroup of the Modelling Advisory Group.

  • Also agreed that the terms that need defining are "Canonical Normal Form" (which is terse by definition) and "Necessary Long Normal Form"

Review of "Using SNOMED with FHIR" page

@Dion McMurtrie

All participants are invited to review this local copy of that page.

Review of TS Collaborative Work

@Dion McMurtrie

Collaborative Work

Any other business

Next Meeting: Tuesday 26 June

Questions for next week: