Discussions (2)
Comments
I would like to second Michael’s suggestion of adding an easy way to find the set of reference sets that contain a given concept, as this is a feature that I have often “wished for” during refset maintenance. Perhaps there are some additional use cases? A few comments on Michael’s proposed syntax:
I would be a bit cautious about using the “@” symbol for this, given that this is also used by the template syntax to prefix a slot name (this may cause confusion when both are used within an expression template for different purposes).
I would like to throw a few other possible options into the virtual "ring" - “? 404684003” or “^? 404684003” or “^R 404684003” (note: The last one meaning “ReverseOf memberOf”).
Would this operator be intended to be applied only to a single concept, or could it be applied to a subexpression constraint? E.g. ^? <404684003
The other difference between the briefer and fuller syntax (although I prefer the shorter syntax too!) is that the fuller syntax allows you to find a set of reference sets that contain the given value in columns/attributes other than the referencedComponentId e.g. "^[refsetId] * {{ M targetComponentId = 404684003 }}" Perhaps that's a slippery slope ... but I think it's worth noting the differences in expressivity between the two approaches.
Ah, I always forget about the template syntax
I had actually thought about ^R as an option
concept vs expression - I haven't really contemplated this
Agree it's a slippery slope – I think we need to get input from implementers on the implementation cost / overheads
@Kai Kewley @Alejandro Lopez Osornio All I would like to start a discussion about how to find all the reference sets that contain a given SNOMED code, but I no longer have permissions for the "Add discussion" button hence this comment.
We can almost get there with current syntax:
^[refsetId] * {{ M referencedComponentId = 404684003 }}
But "refsetId" is not a valid Field Name.
On the other hand, this is pretty obscure syntax, may have inherent poor performance, and thus it would be nice to have a more direct syntax for this.
I am thinking we could use the '@' symbol for "contains" similarly to how the '^' symbol is used for "memberOf". So, the above would just be:
@404684003