Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata



GoToMeeting Details


  • Discuss the options for future direction of the Mapping SIG

Discussion items

1Welcome and conflicts of interestHazel Brear
  • No conflict of interest declared

2Options for future direction of the Mapping SIG Ian Green

The proposal is that the Mapping SIG will cease to exist as a SIG. Mapping SIG and Implementation SIG do not really fit in to the model of a SIG.

The IHTSDO Mapping Service Team (MST) are working on the mapping of new core content, maintenance and quality updates for ICD-10. Also involved in equivalence and linkage tables such as GMDN. They are working closely with the classifications Orphanet and ICN. The new mapping advisory group should be taking a perspective view on those kind off activities e.g. looking at how to develop guidance for the 28 countries who will be involved in mapping within their own borders and developing guidance on best practice.

IG preference is that it will become a sub-group of the Content Managers Group. However he will consult with members of the Management Board (MB) to explore their thinking on what we be the best option. Any proposal would have to be ratified by the MB and General Assembly (GA).

Current formation of sub-groups are allowed but are all 'Task' and 'Finish' groups. This is historic but under review so would need to change.

IG: It would make sense for the Chair to be an IHTSDO staff member, probably from the MST, with a Vice-Chair from the community of practice. In the first instance it would make sense if this was Hazel.  This model would ensure a link between internal and community of practice activities.

The question was asked (JRC) should the Mapping SIG evolve in to an Interoperability SIG who would serve as an advisory group to content in the formulation, design testing and assistance with projects which promote interoperation of SNOMED CT data with other terminology spaces and projects identified by the members as a priority.

IG:If the group remit is too broad then it would be very difficult to pull in the right skill mix to the group.The group would be able to advise in development for solutions but would be constrained because of the overlap of interoperability that is already covered by the Implementation SIG.

IG: Membership (core) would be nominated and voted in probably 6 - 8 members. Observers and contributors would be encouraged to participate and contribute. It would be the core group responsibility for deliverables.

GT: Would like to see the group work  to develop similar guidelines as that which has have been done for conditions. Still not seeing the difference between the options.

IG: There isn't a lot of difference, mostly around the governance of the group.

KWF: Of the two  of directions discussed Jim's approach is more focussed on specific maps of high importance i.e. ICD-11.The other is broader, looking at multiple instances. It is time to look for a new mission for this group looking for commonality in mapping projects for cross-fertilisation.

ICD-11 is very different and a mapping group may need to be involved in development or certainly the maintenance of the linearization because it will involve a lot of skills that mapping experts have but there is still a need for a group focussing on mapping or linkage activities.

IG was asked if it is it easier to form a sub-group?

IG: a proposal would need to go to the MB and GA, which ever option we choose. Part of that will include ToR for the group.

Would be good if we could finalise something before April meeting.

HB will draft ToR, send to IG then circulate to the group via confluence ready for discussion at next Mapping SIG meeting.





 Hazel Brear to draft ToR and send to Ian Green to update following which Hazel Brear will post to confluence.


Meeting Files

No files shared here yet.


Previous Meetings

No content found.