Expression Constraint Language |  Former user (Deleted)
| << 125605004 |Fracture of bone| :
363698007 |Finding site| = 23416004 |Structure of ulna|,
116676008 |Associated morphology| = 72704001 |Fracture|,
[0..0] (<<410662002 |Concept model attribute| MINUS 363698007 |Finding site| MINUS 16676008 |Associated morphology|) = *
Given knowledge of the concept model, this could be expressed (verbosely) as
<< 125605004 |Fracture of bone| :
363698007 |Finding site| = 23416004 |Structure of ulna|,
116676008 |Associated morphology| = 72704001 |Fracture|,
[0..0] << 47429007 |Associated with| = *,
[0..0] 263502005 |Clinical course| = *,
[0..0] 246456000 |Episodicity| = *,
[0..0] 419066007 |Finding informer| = *,
[0..0] 418775008 |Finding method| = *,
[0..0] 363713009 |Has interpretation| = *,
[0..0] 363714003 |Interprets| = *,
[0..0] 246454002 |Occurrence| = *,
[0..0] 370135005 |Pathological process| = *,
[0..0] 246112005 |Severity| = *,
[0..0] 363705008 |Has definitional manifestation| = *
Is this requirement common enough for us to support the simplified form?
Agreement was reached that this (i.e. allowing an expression constraint in the place of an attribute name) is a reasonable requirement that should be added to a future version of the ECL (v1.3) The detailed solution for this proposal needs to be worked through. Work is also needed to develop a set of invalid expression constraints for testing ECL v1.3 will be delayed until this work is complete
|