Date
20:00 UTC on Tuesday 10 July 2018 - 90 minutes.
Objectives
- FHIR Terminology Services and Resources
Meeting Details
Online: https://snomed.zoom.us/my/snomedhl7
Phone: See https://zoom.us/zoomconference for available phone numbers (meeting id 242-348-6949)
Chat: https://chat.snomedtools.org/channel/snomed-fhir
(instructions and guide here - Getting Started with Rocket Chat)
Discussion items
Item | Description | Mins | Owner | Notes & Actions |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Welcome and introductions | 5 | Recording, notes & attendance. Next Meeting: Tuesday 31 July NB Skipped a week SNOMED on FHIR meeting planned during the business meeting - closed session (observers space dependent).
| |
2 | October Expo - Vancouver | 5 | Call for abstract - presentation on the work of this group (2 presenters max).
| |
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. Suggestions:
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. Suggested Enumeration:
| |
5 | Note this discussion is specific to the response to Term during validation. | 20 | 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.
Discussion | |
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. | |
7 | Current items | 10 |
| |
8 | Review of "Using SNOMED with FHIR" page | 5 | All participants are invited to review this local copy of that page.
| |
9 | Review of TS Collaborative Work | 5 | Collaborative Work | |
10 | Any other business | Next Meeting: Tuesday 31 July NB Skipped a week Actions for next week: Proposals for exapand Options for validate code - mapping between various data issue scenarios and true/false result flag. |
Meeting Files