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

Difference between revisions of "Negation Requirements Project Minutes 21 June 2017"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with " <!-- LOOK FOR THE APPROPRIATE SECTION ****** TO ENTER INFORMATION--> Back to Negation Minutes ==Minutes== ===Meeting Information=== {|border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspaci...")
 
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 110: Line 110:
 
===Agenda===
 
===Agenda===
 
'''Agenda Topics''' <br/>
 
'''Agenda Topics''' <br/>
−
# 2/22 meeting: no quorum
+
# agenda review
−
# Ballot review
+
# ballot overview:  
−
## Use cases
+
## clarifications (Lisa, Ken, Larry, Stephen)
−
## Classes, coverage of spreadsheet
+
## comments grouped in spreadsheet on [[media: HL7_XPARADIGM_NEGATION_R1_I1_2017MAY_Consolidated.xlsx | wiki]] Biggest categories:
−
## Need for activity diagrams?
+
### editorial pass - Mark K has offered. But first, finish analysis.
−
## How to make dependency on desiderata explicit (e.g., concrete, explicit)
+
### rationalize/harmonize terms (classes, categories)
−
## Cases: nkds, intents
+
# plan
−
## draft of policy?
+
## issue is primarily (ii); i.e., analysis. Edit prose later.
−
 
+
## also need consistent approach for consumer use cases. Request from community.
 +
# recommendations
 +
# September?
  
 
===Minutes===
 
===Minutes===
Line 133: Line 135:
  
 
'''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?
+
# Plan looks sensible
−
## 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.
+
# Request attendance.
−
## This seems like a problem with using DL. Three things may be necessary for this:
+
# Invite Cecil Lynch, Jim Case.
−
### The element must be modeled as a negation - if not fully defined, at least with explicit negation.
+
# September: probably not.
−
### 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 14:38, 21 June 2017

Back to Negation Minutes

Minutes

Meeting Information

HL7 PC-CIMI-POC Meeting Minutes

Location: PC call line

Date: 2017-06-21
Time: 11:00-12:00 ET
Facilitator Jay Lyle Note taker(s) Jay Lyle
Attendee Name Affiliation


y Jay Lyle JP Systems
Monique von Berkum
John Kilbourne
Elaine Taylor
y John Roberts
Zahid Butt
Andrew Haslam
Floyd Eisenberg
Susan Barber
Larry McKnight
Galen Mulrooney
Kurt Allen
Jim Case
Juliet Rubini
Hank Mayers

Agenda

Agenda Topics

  1. agenda review
  2. ballot overview:
    1. clarifications (Lisa, Ken, Larry, Stephen)
    2. comments grouped in spreadsheet on wiki Biggest categories:
      1. editorial pass - Mark K has offered. But first, finish analysis.
      2. rationalize/harmonize terms (classes, categories)
  3. plan
    1. issue is primarily (ii); i.e., analysis. Edit prose later.
    2. also need consistent approach for consumer use cases. Request from community.
  4. recommendations
  5. September?

Minutes

Minutes/Conclusions Reached:

  1. Plan looks sensible
  2. Request attendance.
  3. Invite Cecil Lynch, Jim Case.
  4. September: probably not.

Draft DAM

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_21_June_2017&oldid=141274"