2020-04-22 - SLPG Meeting

Welcome and agenda

@Former user (Deleted)

Concrete values

@Former user (Deleted)

ON HOLD: SCG, ECL, STS, ETL - Ready for publication, but on hold until after MAG meeting in April confirming requirement for Boolean datatype.

Expression Constraint Language

@Former user (Deleted)

WIP ECL Specification

Querying Refset Attributes

@Former user (Deleted)

Proposed syntax to support querying and return of alternative refset attributes (To be included in the SNOMED Query Language)

Returning Attributes

@michael lawley

Proposal (by Michael) for discussion

• Currently ECL expressions can match (return) concepts that are either the source or the target of a relationship triple (target is accessed via the 'reverse' notation or 'dot notation', but not the relationship type (ie attribute name) itself. 

For example, I can write: 

<< 404684003|Clinical finding| : 363698007|Finding site| = <<66019005|Limb structure| 

<< 404684003|Clinical finding| . 363698007|Finding site| 

But I can't get all the attribute names that are used by << 404684003|Clinical finding| 

Reverse Member Of

@michael lawley

Proposal for discussion

What refsets is a given concept (e.g. 421235005 |Structure of femur|) a member of?

• Possible new notation for this:

  • ^ . 421235005 |Structure of femur|

  • ? X ? 421235005 |Structure of femur| = ^ X

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 ]]}

• Implementation feedback on draft updates to Expression Template Language syntax

  • Use cases from the Quality Improvement Project:

    • Multiple instances of the same role group, with some attributes the same and others different. Eg same morphology, potentially different finding sites.

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 SI

1. Generate the parser from the ABNF and implement in the Template Service

2. User Interface to a) allow users to specify template at runtime b) tabular (auto-completion) lookup → STL

3. Template Service to allow multiple templates to be specified for alignment check (aligns to none-off)

4. 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

Description Templates

@Kai Kewley

Query Language
- Summary from previous meetings

@Former user (Deleted)

FUTURE WORK

Examples: version and dialect

Notes

Confirm next meeting date/time

@Former user (Deleted)

Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday 22nd April 2020 at 20:00 UTC.