April 8, 2019

Call to order and role call

Notice of recording

Conflicts of Interest

•  2019-04 Agenda approved

• Consideration of addition of "Withdrawn"
• 2.3.10.1 Concept Inactivation
• From prior discussion, things you can say about an inactivated concept
  • 1..1 exact match - SAME AS
  • 1..X same as one or more concepts - MAY BE
  • Subtype of - WAS A
  • What is the use case for REPLACED BY? For erroneous concepts, out of date concepts? Does it provide additional value to make this distinction?
    • SAME AS: A = B, B = A
    • REPLACED BY: A <> B ?
  • Need to ensure that the semantic granularity is similar for "replacement" concepts.
  • How do we ensure consistent usage? Tooling currently constrains associations allowed for specific inactivation types
  • Do AMBIGUOUS concepts require 2..X MAY BE historical relationships?
  • MOVED TO and MOVED FROM needs to reflect RF2 structures (i.e. modules as opposed to namespaces)
  • WAS A relationships can be constructed from the release files
  • Are additional historical relationships needed to fill gaps in retrieval or analysis?
  • Concepts inactivated without a historical relationship (i.e. non-conformance to editorial policy) have an implied WAS A
• Three aspects need to be considered:
  • Consistent historical relationship assignment by authors
  • Guidance for users to correctly use these relationship
  • From a QA perspective, cleanup of existing relationship to improve internal consistency
• Should this be partially addressed by derivatives?

April 8, 2019

Call to order and role call

Notice of recording

Conflicts of Interest

Background document:

• SNOMED 2020-2025 draft strategy
• Review first year deliverables
• Begin discussion on specific criteria to identify the "clinical core" content