This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Negation Requirements Project Minutes 8 March 2017"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
'''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/> | '''Minutes/Conclusions Reached:'''<br/> | ||
− | # | + | # Most cases can be handled without logical negation operator. Can we identify cases where this operator is necessary? |
+ | ## Example: search for "no cancer" (to screen for a study, e.g.). If "no breast cancer" is a child of "no cancer," then patients with other cancers who have "no breast cancer" recorded may be inferred. | ||
+ | ## This seems like a problem with using DL. Three things may be necessary for this: | ||
+ | ### The element must be modeled as a negation - if not fully defined, at least with explicit negation. | ||
+ | ### The analyst (or agent) must understand how to classify negated concepts (e.g., which DLs can cope, how to identify where inversion is appropriate, etc.) | ||
+ | ### There cannot be other implied dimensions of negation that are relevant but not handled. | ||
+ | #### Implied negation: concepts that look affirmative but imply negation; e.g., "left hemiplegia present" implies "right hemiplegia absent" | ||
+ | ##### Places where it looks implied may not be. E.g., 'oriented' and 'disoriented' are not complete -- neither includes comatose. I.e., 'not oriented' does not imply 'disoriented' | ||
+ | #### This is a problem endemic to language and reality. It may mean that any uses of negation must be task-specific; one cannot represent information and expect that there is no context in which negation may not become relevant. | ||
+ | ## Information modeling cannot solve this problem, except to specify condition 1 - that you can't do it without explicit negation. | ||
+ | # "Spleen present" is asked. | ||
+ | ## But it is in the context of safety - checking for contraindications. | ||
+ | ## Is there a criterion we can use for determining when explicit negation modeling is necessary or useful? | ||
+ | ### "Persistence" of condition doesn't work: absence of spleen persists. | ||
+ | ### The "Persistence" of interest is the information's usefulness | ||
+ | ### Criterion: is/would DL be useful? | ||
+ | #### E.g., "NKDA" works fine: what additional cases do we enable by refining it to "DA - Absent"? | ||
+ | # Desideratum 2 | ||
+ | ## Unclear. Clarify that this is about the problem domain, not solutions. | ||
+ | # Desideratum 4 | ||
+ | ## clarity, ok. Recommending 'idempotent' may be 'design'; avoid. | ||
+ | # Key issues | ||
+ | ## Children; i.e., inferring subclasses when inference is inverted | ||
+ | ## Equivalence; i.e., when two expressions mean the same thing. [Not so much: this is hard, but not specific to negation] | ||
===Draft DAM=== | ===Draft DAM=== |
Latest revision as of 20:43, 8 March 2017
Back to Negation Minutes
Contents
Minutes
Meeting Information
HL7 PC-CIMI-POC Meeting Minutes Location: PC call line |
Date: 2017-03-08 Time: 11:00-12:00 ET | ||
Facilitator | Jay Lyle | Note taker(s) | Jay Lyle |
Attendee | Name | Affiliation
| |
y | Jay Lyle | JP Systems | |
y | Monique von Berkum | ||
y | John Kilbourne | ||
y | Elaine Taylor | ||
Jaime Jouza | |||
Zahid Butt | |||
Andrew Haslam | |||
Floyd Eisenberg | |||
Susan Barber | |||
Larry McKnight | |||
Galen Mulrooney | |||
Kurt Allen | |||
Jim Case | |||
Juliet Rubini | |||
Hank Mayers | |||
Agenda
Agenda Topics
- 2/22 meeting: no quorum
- Ballot review
- Use cases
- Classes, coverage of spreadsheet
- Need for activity diagrams?
- How to make dependency on desiderata explicit (e.g., concrete, explicit)
- Cases: nkds, intents
- draft of policy?
Minutes
Minutes/Conclusions Reached:
- Most cases can be handled without logical negation operator. Can we identify cases where this operator is necessary?
- Example: search for "no cancer" (to screen for a study, e.g.). If "no breast cancer" is a child of "no cancer," then patients with other cancers who have "no breast cancer" recorded may be inferred.
- This seems like a problem with using DL. Three things may be necessary for this:
- The element must be modeled as a negation - if not fully defined, at least with explicit negation.
- The analyst (or agent) must understand how to classify negated concepts (e.g., which DLs can cope, how to identify where inversion is appropriate, etc.)
- There cannot be other implied dimensions of negation that are relevant but not handled.
- Implied negation: concepts that look affirmative but imply negation; e.g., "left hemiplegia present" implies "right hemiplegia absent"
- Places where it looks implied may not be. E.g., 'oriented' and 'disoriented' are not complete -- neither includes comatose. I.e., 'not oriented' does not imply 'disoriented'
- This is a problem endemic to language and reality. It may mean that any uses of negation must be task-specific; one cannot represent information and expect that there is no context in which negation may not become relevant.
- Implied negation: concepts that look affirmative but imply negation; e.g., "left hemiplegia present" implies "right hemiplegia absent"
- Information modeling cannot solve this problem, except to specify condition 1 - that you can't do it without explicit negation.
- "Spleen present" is asked.
- But it is in the context of safety - checking for contraindications.
- Is there a criterion we can use for determining when explicit negation modeling is necessary or useful?
- "Persistence" of condition doesn't work: absence of spleen persists.
- The "Persistence" of interest is the information's usefulness
- Criterion: is/would DL be useful?
- E.g., "NKDA" works fine: what additional cases do we enable by refining it to "DA - Absent"?
- Desideratum 2
- Unclear. Clarify that this is about the problem domain, not solutions.
- Desideratum 4
- clarity, ok. Recommending 'idempotent' may be 'design'; avoid.
- Key issues
- Children; i.e., inferring subclasses when inference is inverted
- Equivalence; i.e., when two expressions mean the same thing. [Not so much: this is hard, but not specific to negation]
Draft DAM
Meeting Outcomes
Actions
|
Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
|
© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.