Expression Templates | @Peter Williams | Examples: [[+id]]: [[1..*] @my_group sameValue(morphology)] { |Finding site| = [[ +id (<<123037004 |Body structure (body structure)| MINUS << $site[! SELF ] ) @site ]] , |Associated morphology| = [[ +id @my_morphology ]]} Note that QI Project is coming from a radically different use case. Instead of filling template slots, we're looking at existing content and asking "exactly how does this concept fail to comply to this template?" For discussion: Is it correct to say either one of the cardinality blocks is redundant? What are the implications of 1..1 on either side? This is less obvious for the self grouped case. Road Forward for SIGenerate the parser from the ABNF and implement in the Template Service User Interface to a) allow users to specify template at runtime b) tabular (auto-completion) lookup → STL Template Service to allow multiple templates to be specified for alignment check (aligns to none-off) Output must clearly indicate exactly what feature of concept caused misalignment, and what condition was not met.
Additional note: QI project is no longer working in subhierarchies. Every 'set' of concepts is selected via ECL. In fact most reports should now move to this way of working since a subhierarchy is the trivial case. For a given template, we additionally specify the "domain" to which it should be applied via ECL. This is much more specific than using the focus concept which is usually the PPP eg Disease. FYI @Michael Chu |
Expression Constraint Language | @Former user (Deleted) | Previous discussions Syntax {{ term = [ termSearchType : ] "String", languageCode = [langCode] }} Term Search Type Wild Card Match (collation) - e.g.
Regex - e.g.
Word Prefix Any Order - e.g.
Default (word prefix any order) - e.g.
{{ term = "hear att" }} {{ term = "*heart*“ }}
Potential Examples << 64572001 |Disease| {{ term = “heart”}} << 64572001 |Disease| {{ term = “heart”, languageCode = "en"}} << 64572001 |Disease| {{ term = “heart”, languageCode = "en"}} AND << 64572001 |Disease| {{ term = “hjärta”, languageCode = "sv"}} << 64572001 |Disease| {{ term = “heart”, languageCode = "en"}} {{ term = “hjärta”, languageCode = "sv"}} << 64572001 |Disease| {{ term = “heart”, languageCode = "en"}} OR << 64572001 |Disease| {{ term = “hjärta", languageCode = "sv"}} << 64572001 |Disease| {{ (term = “heart”, languageCode = "en") OR (term = “hjärta", languageCode = "sv")}} (<< 64572001 |Disease|: |Associated morphology| = *) {{ term = “heart”, languageCode = "en", }} {{ term = “hjärta", languageCode = "sv"}} (<< 64572001 |Disease| {{ term = “*cardio*” }}) MINUS (<< 64572001 |Disease| {{ term != “*heart*” }}) Recommendation to be made on (based on investigation of grammar): << 64572001 |Disease| {{ term = “heart”, languageCode = "en"}} AND {{ term = “hjärta”, languageCode = "sv"}} << 64572001 |Disease| ( {{ term = “heart”, languageCode = "en"}} OR {{ term = “hjärta”, languageCode = "sv"}} ) << 64572001 |Disease| ( {{ term = “heart”, languageCode = "en"}} MINUS {{ term = “hjärta”, languageCode = "sv"}} )
Use Cases Intentionally define a reference set for chronic disease. Starting point was ECL with modelling; This misses concepts modelled using the pattern you would expect. So important in building out that reference set. Authors quality assuring names of concepts Checking translations, retranslating. Queries for a concept that has one word in Swedish, another word in English AU use case would have at most 3 or 4 words in match Consistency of implementation in different terminology services Authoring use cases currently supported by description templates A set of the "*ectomy"s and "*itis"s
Questions Do we include 'typeId' - e.g. << 64572001 |Disease| {{ D.term = “*heart*”, typeId = 900000000000013009 |Synonym| }} Do we include 'type' - e.g. << 64572001 |Disease| {{ D.term = “*heart*”, D.type = synonym }} Do we include 'languageCode' - e.g. << 64572001 |Disease| {{ D.term = “*heart*”, D.type = synonym, D.languageCode = “en” }} Do we include 'caseSignificanceId' - e.g. << 64572001 |Disease| {{ D.term = “*Heart*”, D.caseSignificanceId = 900000000000017005 |case sensitive|}} Do we include 'caseSignificance' - e.g. << 64572001 |Disease| {{ D.term = “*Heart*”, D.caseSignificance = sensitive }} Do we include 'language' and 'version' - e.g. << 64572001 |Disease| {{ term = “*heart*” }} VERSION = http://…, LANGUAGE = (999001881000000108|Gastro LRS|, |GB English|) Do we include syntactic sugar - e.g. << 64572001 |Disease| {{ preferredTerm = “*heart*”, languageRefSet = en-gb}} << 64572001 |Disease| {{ fullySpecifiedTerm = “*heart*”, languageRefSet=en-gb}} << 64572001 |Disease| {{ acceptableTerm = “*heart*”, languageRefSet = en-gb}} << 64572001 |Disease| {{ preferredTerm = “*heart*”}} FROM version = X, language = Y NO
Do we use/require the "D" at the start of "term"? Packaging - How do we package this extension to ECL A new version of ECL - e.g. 2.0 (or 1.4?) → same specification document An optional extension to ECL for SNOMED authors/content developers - e.g. ECL++ / ECLv1.3++ → An appendix on the ECL document? (with Filter Language) A subset/profile of the Query Language → A separate document that defines SNOMED filters, which can be added to any version of ECL Filter Language
|
Executing maps | @Former user (Deleted) | Reverse memberOf function Proposed syntax to support execution of maps (Outstanding question: ECL or Query Language? Scope and packaging needs further discussion) |