Playing around with the RVF recently has raised some questions for me. (Mostly around Modelling, so MAG seemed like the best place to post). (The RVF defaults to validating the MRCM against the “stated”. (Presumably this now means axioms).I’d have thought the inferred form is really what’s important? Otherwise problematic inferences aren't revealed) Running the RVF against the inferred form I encountered many fails like       The MRCM attribute cardinality is [0..1] for 840562008 |Has devi

Dear all, We have reviewed the current representations for limbs and girdles in anatomy project. The proposed revision is intended to improve the quality of body structure hierarchy. Since these changes will have a wider impact on the model and classification of diseases and procedures, we would like to ask SNOMED AGs to review the proposal and provide feedback. The comments can be added directly in the Google doc at the following link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zlVNTxuiL

Please see the slides, diagrams for MRCM and information about them from Ed Cheetham.  We would like your input on how we can utilise these diagrams. Ed says: The attached MRCM-post-all.dot, MRCM-post-all.svg, MRCM-pre-all.dot and MRCM-pre-all.svg are the ‘dot’ files for the images generated from the MRCM Domain international refset templates, along with their corresponding svg output files, using GraphViz’s (https://www.graphviz.org/ https://www.graphviz.org/) dot.exe layout. I’m su

Professor Patrik Eklund of Umeå University, Department of Computing Science, in Sweden, sent us an email with the title, “SNOMED's logical foundation is too shallow for practical applications”. We attempted to set up a meeting with Prof. Eklund, Daniel and Mikael (both Sewdish), Jim (Case) and myself (not so Swedish). However, Prof Eklund declined to participate in a meeting involving DL experts. Below we provide the substance of the email, and documents pertaining to Prof. Eklund’s