Page tree

StatusReady for implementation



Termdescription typeLanguage/acceptabilityLanguage/acceptabilityCase significance

[cellulitis morphology] and [abscess morphology] of [body structure] (disorder)


[cellulitis morphology] and [abscess morphology] of [body structure]


Concept model:

Definition status:  

900000000000073002 |Defined|

Applies to

<< 128477000 |Abscess (disorder)| AND  << 128045006 |Cellulitis (disorder)|

Template Language

Rules for generating descriptions:

  1. Apply General rules for generating descriptions for templates
  2. Appy Enhancements for the Template Language;

Jira ticket:

QI-210 - Getting issue details... STATUS

INFRA-3262 - Getting issue details... STATUS


  1. Suzanne Santamaria , I made some changes to provide further restriction for the model and descriptions. The morphologies are specified in detail for descriptions to have the same order.  This template will only have two role groups with different morphologies. We won't allow having different number of role groups. So, cardinality for role group is not applicable.  In Template Language, added @site to ensure they have the same finding site in both role group. The name @morph is removed to allow having different values in each role group. The rest attributes should be repeated in these two @rolegroup. 

    1. Yongsheng Gao  Is the "@rolegroup" attribute actually needed here?   The fact that we're giving each instance of FindingSite the same identifier ("@site") can be taken to mean that they must be identical?

      I'm concerned about "@rolegroup"...I don't think it's purpose is clear.   We're saying that role groups have to match, but obviously one or more attributes will have to be different.    If we've got some marker at the role group level, we're not giving any clear indication of which attributes we expect to be the same and which we expect to be different.   In this case the morphology changes and the finding site must be the same, but in other cases (eg Laterality) we expect the same morphology and different finding sites.

      In addition, when you say "We won't allow having different number of role groups. So, cardinality for role group is not applicable"  what I think should be said instead is "We won't allow having different number of role groups. So, cardinality for both role groups will be 1..1 "   

      What do you think ?   Thanks, Peter

      1. Thanks Peter G. Williams, good point. The @rolegroup is intended to address the potential mismatches between role group for optional attributes. If an optional attribute exists in one named role group, the other named role group must also has this attributes. When a template does not have optional attributes, the name role group is not needed anymore.

        Since we have removed all optional attributes, we do not need to have named role group because all role groups and attributes have been explicitly represented. I have updated the cardinality as specified 1..1 in the Template language. 



  2. It doesn't look like we have any specific causes or time periods for the cellulitis and abscess, so having PATHOLOGICAL PROCESS and OCCURRENCE even as optional attributes seems a bit like overkill, no?  Same for CLINICAL COURSE, i.e. no existing concepts that use this relationship.

    1. Hi Jim Case, the template would cover the possibilities. It won't be a problem for checking template conformance. However, I agree that it is a bit overkill for all those optional attributes. These optional attributes will be displayed in the SCA and have to delete most of them when we are going to create a new concept by template. If no objection from Suzanne Santamaria, we can remove those optional attributes.

      1. Jim Case  and Yongsheng Gao  I do not object to removing the optional attributes. I will do so now...

        1. Yongsheng Gao I have removed the attributes. Please review again.