Discussions (2)

Status: All

New
In discussion
Resolved
No corresponding status

Creators: All

Current user

No specific user

Creation period

Choose creation period

ideation.btn.close

Today Last week Last month Reset

Categories: All

No corresponding category

Retrieving Primitive/Fully defined concepts

Added by Vicente Giménez Solano on Nov 14, 2019

What is your opinion about retrieving only primitive/fully defined concepts in ECL?

Status: In discussion 571 View 2 Comment Comments enabled In the category: Undefined

Comment Last contribution, Nov 15, 2019. All contributions

Linda Bird

Hi Vicente, Yes - retrieving only primitive, or only fully defined concepts is a useful use case - as you say, particularly for things like proximal primitive parent authoring. We have definitely considered this, and are planning for this to be included in broader SNOMED query language, which will essentially consist of ECL + filters. The filters will allow you to filter the results of an ECL query using RF2 fields, such as definitionStatusId. This has been work-in-progress for a while now .... but will hopefully be ready to publish next year. Kind regards, Linda.

Executing maps - ECL or QL

Added by Ed Cheetham on Nov 13, 2019

Thoughts on the topic

Status: In discussion 764 View 2 Comment Comments enabled In the category: Undefined

Comment Last contribution, Nov 15, 2019. All contributions

Linda Bird

Thanks for your thoughts on this Ed. I definitely agree with you that we should not be expanding the scope of ECL to allow things to be matched/returned that are not SNOMED concepts. However, we have been discussing this functionality in the context of the more expressive Query Language. So while we haven't explicitly discussed recently where this refset functionality should be added, I personally agree with you that it would make sense to leave this for the more expressive Query Language (and not try to squeeze in concept-only reference set filters into ECL). Linda.

Non-redundant attributes in cardinality count

Added by Vicente Giménez Solano on Nov 12, 2019

Some doubts in non-redundant attributes in cardinality count

Status: Resolved 1204 View 6 Comment Comments enabled In the category: Undefined

Comment Last useful answer, Jul 1, 2020. All contributions

Michael Lawley

Hi Vicente, If those two relationships are in the same role group, then (a) is redundant (it is wholly implied by (b)) and would not appear in the Relationships file. If they are in separate role groups, then you have a situation analogous to your question A above. Regarding transitive properties and other property chains, there is no special provision in ECL for these, but if you "wrap" your (sub)expression in a descendantsOrSelfOf then you will match all the concepts that are inferable due the role chaining. For example, <<A : B = C would become <<(<<A : B = C)

URIs for provisional releases

Added by Michael Lawley on Feb 2, 2019

Provisional releases contain content that should be treated as somehow separate and distinct from normal production releases. However, to ingest, manipulate, and process with standard toolchains (e.g., terminology servers), it still needs to be identified while still remaining distinct from production content. This proposal is that a parallel URI space (http://snomed.info/xsct) be set aside for such provisional releases. Mirroring the http://snomed.info/sct URI space, this would include:

Status: In discussion 804 View 1 Comment Comments enabled In the category: Undefined

Comment Last contribution, Feb 12, 2019. All contributions

Linda Bird

Interesting suggestion Michael. I will add this to the SLPG agenda to discuss.

ECL and grouped attributes

Added by Daniel Karlsson on Jan 2, 2019

Tried four implementations of ECL using grouped and non-grouped attributes in the query and got different results.

Status: In discussion 4370 View 20 Comment Comments enabled In the category: Undefined

Comment Last contribution, Feb 12, 2019. All contributions

Ed Cheetham

Thanks Linda. Most of this is actually familiar (from the behaviour of at least one of the old perl scripts), and in the meantime I'd salvaged similar material from the owl guide and various places on confluence after searching confluence for “self-grouped”. My concern as to where this is going is that it risks polluting the relatively human-readable and understandable SCG (and associated syntax) form with MRCM-held authoring business rules and DL reasoner requirements; in particular the calls for ‘no more implicit grouping’. The notion of ‘never grouped’ roles is relevant to modelling activities (“roles X, Y and Z should never be grouped with another role”) - fine. The notion of representing self-grouped roles is required for an owl-representation of role grouping to work as intended for DL classification, as you explain - fine. I also *think* I see, on the EAG site, a proposal (but it’s not clear from the slides) to automate the groping of many ‘ungrouped but groupable’ role sets. All of these can be enacted when/where they need to in the authoring and classification workflows, but I don’t see why any of these need to ‘leak out’ into the explicit SCG forms of expressions and expression constraints. Ed

MRCM

Added by Ed Cheetham on Dec 17, 2018

MRCM-related questions

Status: In discussion 3039 View 15 Comment Comments enabled In the category: Undefined

Comment Last contribution, Feb 6, 2023. All contributions

Ed Cheetham

I see that this error pattern is back: 309635005 H/O: Admission in last year for diabetes foot problem 309636006 History of hospital admission in last year for hyperglycaemic disorder ...are both modelled as an FWEC and a PWEC. The MRCM prohibition constraints that theoretically prevent this are still present, so it's odd that these sorts of constructs can still be created and published.

How can I write an ECL expression to match attribute names

Added by Michael Lawley on Jan 8, 2018

Status: In discussion 1083 View 1 Comment Comments disabled In the category: Undefined

Comment Last contribution, Feb 10, 2019. All contributions

Linda Bird

Michael - Is there a strong use case for this? And if so, do you have a proposal as to how this should be done?

Comments in expressions

Added by Peris Brodsky on Aug 27, 2017

I propose that the compositional grammar support comments in the same way as the ECL. Not just for completeness and symmetry with the other languages: I actually tried to comment out a portion of an expression before quickly realizing it made the expression illegal!

Status: In discussion 2582 View 12 Comment Comments enabled In the category: Undefined

Comment Last contribution, Aug 30, 2017. All contributions

Peris Brodsky

In programming languages, there are two purposes for an embedded comment syntax. The original, motivating one is to allow internal, localized documentation of subunits of a large program. The second, more frequently purpose (at least for me) is to "comment-out" parts of a program during development. Both usages have merit for the ECL, certainly. Although the long syntax can help make constraints self-documenting, large or complex constraints need the human touch. And during development of a constraint, the ability to comment-out is essential, especially for those still learning the language. Though SCG expressions tend to be smaller than ECL constraints, for me the ability to comment-out has been nearly as important while developing logic to operate on them (an ECL executor, for example). There may be use cases for documenting SCG expressions, but I'm not aware of any, and that wasn't my motivation for this proposal.

Interpretation of cardinality of reverse attributes

Added by Daniel Karlsson on May 15, 2017

What should be the interpretation of cardinality of reverse attribute? Does the cardinality apply to the source or the destination of the relationship? Just to clarify!

Status: In discussion 2216 View 8 Comment Comments enabled In the category: Undefined

Comment Last contribution, May 17, 2017. All contributions

Linda Bird

Nesting / Sub-expressions in the ECL

Added by Michael Lawley on Sep 30, 2016

Discussion about extending the ECL to support sub-expressions

Status: In discussion 3170 View 11 Comment Comments enabled In the category: Undefined

Comment Last contribution, Feb 7, 2017. All contributions

Michael Lawley

	Topic	Status	Author	Like	View	Replies	Creation date	Last Reply	Contributors	Category
Discussion	Retrieving Primitive/Fully defined concepts	In discussion	Vicente Giménez Solano	0	View 571	Comment 2	$discPage.getCreationDate().getTime() Nov 14, 2019 15:18	1911150327 Nov 15, 2019 03:27	2	Undefined
Discussion	Executing maps - ECL or QL	In discussion	Ed Cheetham	0	View 764	Comment 2	$discPage.getCreationDate().getTime() Nov 13, 2019 11:14	1911150412 Nov 15, 2019 04:12	2	Undefined
Question	Non-redundant attributes in cardinality count	Resolved	Vicente Giménez Solano	0	View 1204	Comment 6	$discPage.getCreationDate().getTime() Nov 12, 2019 13:10	2007080352 Jul 8, 2020 03:52	6	Undefined
Discussion	URIs for provisional releases	In discussion	Michael Lawley	1	View 804	Comment 1	$discPage.getCreationDate().getTime() Feb 2, 2019 11:42	1902120351 Feb 12, 2019 03:51	1	Undefined
Discussion	ECL and grouped attributes	In discussion	Daniel Karlsson	0	View 4370	Comment 20	$discPage.getCreationDate().getTime() Jan 2, 2019 12:39	1902121119 Feb 12, 2019 11:19	20	Undefined
Discussion	MRCM	In discussion	Ed Cheetham	0	View 3039	Comment 15	$discPage.getCreationDate().getTime() Dec 17, 2018 11:09	2302061400 Feb 6, 2023 14:00	15	Undefined
Question	How can I write an ECL expression to match attribute names	In discussion	Michael Lawley	0	View 1083	Comment 1	$discPage.getCreationDate().getTime() Jan 8, 2018 04:25	1902102304 Feb 10, 2019 23:04	1	Undefined
Discussion	Comments in expressions	In discussion	Peris Brodsky	0	View 2582	Comment 12	$discPage.getCreationDate().getTime() Aug 27, 2017 14:26	1708301314 Aug 30, 2017 13:14	12	Undefined
Discussion	Interpretation of cardinality of reverse attributes	In discussion	Daniel Karlsson	0	View 2216	Comment 8	$discPage.getCreationDate().getTime() May 15, 2017 07:52	1705170555 May 17, 2017 05:55	8	Undefined
Discussion	Nesting / Sub-expressions in the ECL	In discussion	Michael Lawley	0	View 3170	Comment 11	$discPage.getCreationDate().getTime() Sep 30, 2016 00:30	1702070339 Feb 7, 2017 03:39	11	Undefined

1 2 ... Next Last

Add discussion

Discussion summary

Questions 2 Discussions 10 Replies 95 Contributors 12

Contributors (12)

Brian Carlsen

Number of accepted comment 0

Number of comment 1
Brandon Ulrich

Number of accepted comment 0

Number of comment 1
Daniel Karlsson

Number of accepted comment 0

Number of comment 17
Ed Cheetham

Number of accepted comment 0

Number of comment 10
Harold Solbrig

Number of accepted comment 0

Number of comment 5
Jeremy Rogers

Number of accepted comment 0

Number of comment 1
Kai Kewley

Number of accepted comment 0

Number of comment 4
Linda Bird

Number of accepted comment 1

Number of comment 31
Michael Lawley

Number of accepted comment 1

Number of comment 16
Peris Brodsky

Number of accepted comment 0

Number of comment 4
Rory Davidson

Number of accepted comment 0

Number of comment 1
Vicente Giménez Solano

Number of accepted comment 0

Number of comment 4

Space shortcuts

Page tree

Choose creation period

Linda Bird

Linda Bird

Michael Lawley

Linda Bird

Ed Cheetham

Ed Cheetham

Linda Bird

Peris Brodsky

Linda Bird

Michael Lawley

Discussion summary

Contributors (12)