This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Difference between revisions of "Negation Requirements Project Minutes 8 June 2016"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 109: Line 109:
 
# Principles - topics
 
# Principles - topics
 
## We need to define what the effect of these principles should be. Perhaps we should convert them into conformance statements and ballot them.
 
## We need to define what the effect of these principles should be. Perhaps we should convert them into conformance statements and ballot them.
−
# Principles
+
# [[Negation Principles]]
 
## OK. CQI may be responsible for how to handle these "empty query" negations, but we should at least stipulate that they not be recorded in a way that might be confused with actual negation.
 
## OK. CQI may be responsible for how to handle these "empty query" negations, but we should at least stipulate that they not be recorded in a way that might be confused with actual negation.
 
## OK.
 
## OK.
Line 116: Line 116:
 
## Add here a preference to use the term "negation" advisedly, and to distinguish domain semantics where possible. (I.e., where not designing DL rules, as in SCT TIG 7.8.2.4.7.)
 
## Add here a preference to use the term "negation" advisedly, and to distinguish domain semantics where possible. (I.e., where not designing DL rules, as in SCT TIG 7.8.2.4.7.)
 
## Add point that the 'no allergy' and 'no allergy to x' are the use case driving this principle
 
## Add point that the 'no allergy' and 'no allergy to x' are the use case driving this principle
 +
## Add allergy case as an example of an exception.
 +
## OK
 +
## OK
 +
# Moving forward
 +
## It will help to have a nominally complete version of the use case list for sharing with other groups (Jay)
 +
## Richard may be able to take output and generate some kind of next-step example specification
 +
# Review of requirements statement tabled to next week
 +
# Review of model
 +
## Focal concept may be finding or observable, but may also be an anatomical concept or function. In those cases, is it fundamentally an observable?
  
 
===Meeting Outcomes===
 
===Meeting Outcomes===

Latest revision as of 17:19, 8 June 2016


Back to Negation Minutes

Minutes

Meeting Information

HL7 PC-CIMI-POC Meeting Minutes

Location: PC call line

Date: 2016-06-08
Time: 11:00-12:00 ET
Facilitator Jay Lyle Note taker(s) Jay Lyle
Attendee Name Affiliation


y Jay Lyle JP Systems
y Richard Esmond
y Gerard Freriks
y Rob Hausam
y Serafina Versaggi
y Cynthia Barton NLM
Karl Poterack

Agenda

Agenda Topics

  1. . status
  2. . review of draft principles - http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Negation_Principles
  3. . review of requirements statement - http://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Negation_Requirements_Statement
  4. . alternate proposals for semantic model, including choice of finding vs observable (use cases spreadsheet on site)

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Status: PSS still not approved. Asking MnM for participation
  2. Additions suggested for Glossary page: modifier, post-coordinated
  3. Principles - topics
    1. We need to define what the effect of these principles should be. Perhaps we should convert them into conformance statements and ballot them.
  4. Negation Principles
    1. OK. CQI may be responsible for how to handle these "empty query" negations, but we should at least stipulate that they not be recorded in a way that might be confused with actual negation.
    2. OK.
    3. OK
    4. Perhaps this should support different levels of conformance.
    5. Add here a preference to use the term "negation" advisedly, and to distinguish domain semantics where possible. (I.e., where not designing DL rules, as in SCT TIG 7.8.2.4.7.)
    6. Add point that the 'no allergy' and 'no allergy to x' are the use case driving this principle
    7. Add allergy case as an example of an exception.
    8. OK
    9. OK
  5. Moving forward
    1. It will help to have a nominally complete version of the use case list for sharing with other groups (Jay)
    2. Richard may be able to take output and generate some kind of next-step example specification
  6. Review of requirements statement tabled to next week
  7. Review of model
    1. Focal concept may be finding or observable, but may also be an anatomical concept or function. In those cases, is it fundamentally an observable?

Meeting Outcomes

Actions
  • review Use Cases for completeness, classification for accuracy (all)


Next Meeting/Preliminary Agenda Items
  • Continue review of requirements

© 2012 Health Level Seven® International. All rights reserved.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hl7.org/w/index.php?title=Negation_Requirements_Project_Minutes_8_June_2016&oldid=121323"