2020-06-03 - SLPG Meeting
Date & Time
20:00 to 21:00 UTC Wednesday 3rd June 2020
Location
Zoom meeting: https://snomed.zoom.us/j/471420169
Goals
To discuss the representation of concrete values in the MRCM
To review draft collation/folding wording
To agree on options for new parameters to support case sensitivity/regex
To develop examples to illustrate new term searching functionality
Attendees
Chair: @Former user (Deleted)
Project Group: @Ed Cheetham, @Anne Randorff Højen, @Daniel Karlsson, @Peter Jordan (Unlicensed)
Apologies
@michael lawley
Agenda and Meeting Notes
Description | Owner | Notes |
|---|---|---|
Welcome and agenda | @Former user (Deleted) |
|
Concrete Values | @Former user (Deleted) | Languages
MRCM
Diagramming Guideline
|
Expression Constraint Language | @Former user (Deleted) |
|
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
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?
|
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 SI
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
| @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. |
Dear all
Following up on the discussion about diagramming convention for concrete domains...
It looks as though graphviz's Msquare shape has fixed proportions, so will grow as tall as it is wide when long captions/labels are used which is not ideal. Happily however, specifying a simple box/rectangle to have a style of 'diagonals' creates the required 'line at each corner' effect but with a box that behaves as intended (just growing in length). The following diagram snippet shows both in use:
digraph { rankdir=LR; ranksep=.3; splines=ortho; node [shape=box, fontsize=9, fontname=Helvetica, style=filled, fillcolor=white];
/* hidden relationships */
"318421004" -> "138875005" [style=invis];
"260299005" -> "138875005" [style=invis];
"260299005_2" -> "138875005" [style=invis];
"774167006" -> "138875005" [style=invis];
"774167006_2" -> "138875005" [style=invis];
/* visible relationships */
"318421004" -> "C1" [arrowhead=normal];
"C1" -> "732944001" [arrowhead=normal];
"732944001" -> "260299005" [arrowhead=normal];
"C1" -> "732944001_2" [arrowhead=normal];
"732944001_2" -> "260299005_2" [arrowhead=normal];
"C1" -> "774158006" [arrowhead=normal];
"774158006" -> "774167006" [arrowhead=normal];
"C1" -> "774158006_2" [arrowhead=normal];
"774158006_2" -> "774167006_2" [arrowhead=normal];
/* root */
"138875005" [label="138875005\lSNOMED CT Concept", style=invis];
/* attributes */
"732944001" [label="732944001\lHas presentation strength numerator value", shape=box, peripheries=2, style="rounded,filled", fillcolor="#FFFFCC"];
"732944001_2" [label="732944001\lHas presentation strength numerator value", shape=box, peripheries=2, style="rounded,filled", fillcolor="#FFFFCC"];
"774158006" [label="774158006\lHas product name", shape=box, peripheries=2, style="rounded,filled", fillcolor="#FFFFCC"];
"774158006_2" [label="774158006\lHas product name", shape=box, peripheries=2, style="rounded,filled", fillcolor="#FFFFCC"];
/* classes */
"318421004" [label="318421004\lProduct containing precisely atenolol 100 milligram/1 each conventional release oral tablet", shape=box, peripheries=2, style=filled, fillcolor="#CCCCFF"];
"260299005" [label="#100", shape=box, peripheries=1, style="diagonals,filled", fillcolor=lightgreen];
"260299005_2" [label="#100", shape=Msquare, peripheries=1, style=filled, fillcolor=lightgreen];
"774167006" [label="\"Tenormin\"", shape=box, peripheries=1, style="diagonals,filled", fillcolor=lightgreen];
"774167006_2" [label="\"Tenormin\"", shape=Msquare, peripheries=1, style=filled, fillcolor=lightgreen];
"C1" [shape=circle, fontsize=0, width=0, style=filled, fillcolor=black]; }
This specification generates the hypothetical diagram below (if you copy all the blue text above into the box at http://www.webgraphviz.com/ to get a similar layout and the opportunity to experiment/modify):
The lower of each pair of concrete domain boxes are the 'shape=Msquare' ones, the upper ones are the 'shape=box, style=diagonals' ones. In particular you can see that the Msquare' specified 'Tenormin' box is starting to look odd.
Ed