20:00 UTC on Tuesday 26 June 2018 - 90 minutes.
- FHIR Terminology Services and Resources
|Owner||Notes & Actions|
|1||Welcome and introductions||5|
Recording, notes & attendance.
Note: No meeting on Tuesday 24 July. Was due to be TS, postponed to 31 July ie skipping a week, but keeping turn-about fair.
SNOMED on FHIR meeting planned during the business meeting - closed session (observers space dependent).
|2||October Expo - Vancouver||5|
|3||Summary of previous week||5|
|4||Zulip discussion on Post Coordinated expressions||50|
Summary: Expressions filter on CodeSystem Resource - Dion asked Graham about origin of these two items. GG clarified true = permit PCE eg for use in validate-code and similarly for expand. Default = true also. Suggested that expand call should then return every possible post coordinated expression (!!) which is a) hard and b) probably not useful. Such expressions could be available if an expression library had been implemented. However, validate code should handle arbitrary PCEs since this will be a finite set. Note that people do post coordination for other code systems eg UCUM and MIME.
Update: Difference between two positions - when expanding value sets defined intensionally, expectation that any existing pre-coordinated concept or PCE would be included. Graham expects server to return "Too Costly" as logical behaviour would be to return every possible PCE.
Questions / Discussion
Update 26 June
PJ: Could change excludePostCoordinated to includePostCoordinated (and default to false) in operation-valueset-expand.html to better reflect the current capabilities of 99% of systems. Option for finer grained enumeration ("PostCoordination" / "Composition Behaviour"?)for varying efforts in PCE generation. RH: Remember these changes would apply to all code systems.
Note this discussion is specific to the response to Term during validation.
Current behaviour doesn't allow for distinction to be made in responding to quality of term queried.
Note: Since server returns display term, if the query just checks for membership then the client could check its term against that returned. This waters down the usefulness of the server but would simplify if functionality is not in the 80% of features required.
See GForge issue #17218 (ML's). Also #16586.
|6||Main item for discussion||30||SNOMED CT Canonical CodeSystem resource|
Update: URIs populated. Intention to provide short URLs for normalForm and normalFormTerse to point to appropriate definition of terms.
Review of "Using SNOMED with FHIR" page
All participants are invited to review this local copy of that page.
|9||Review of TS Collaborative Work||5||Collaborative Work|
Any other business
Next Meeting: Tuesday 10 July
Questions for next week: