This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Safe querying of a RIM-based data model"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[category:RIMBAA Issue]] | [[category:RIMBAA Issue]] | ||
==Summary== | ==Summary== | ||
| − | *safe querying of a RIM-based data model | + | *How would "safe querying of a RIM-based data model" work? If one pulls an Act (e.g. observation) from the database, what other acts should one include in the response in order for the Act to be accurately securely semantically interpreted? |
| + | |||
| + | Related issue: [[Template Implementation]] | ||
==Analysis== | ==Analysis== | ||
| − | + | *Bob Dolin: Related acts, context propagation, post-coordinated expressions, negationInd, etc - if not considered in a query, can all result in misrepresented data. I suspect some folks have a false sense of security when using templates, that by understanding the templateId they can safely process the data, even though there may be act relationships, etc. | |
| + | *Bob Dolin: It makes me nervous when you (Grahame) state that you don't believe it should be the case that you need to understand all the components to safely interpret an act. Consider for instance that in CCD, we represent problem status (which includes values such as "ruled out") as a related act. Under what circumstances would you be comfortable basing decisions on an Act without looking at the (transitive) relationships? | ||
*Grahame: I don't think you can safely ignore related acts. Though we could probably define some limitations to the impact they might make on the meaning of the code. | *Grahame: I don't think you can safely ignore related acts. Though we could probably define some limitations to the impact they might make on the meaning of the code. | ||
| − | + | *Charlie McCay: It has never been robustly stated that you must process and understand all component acts to safely use act.code (indeed I do not believe that that is or should be the case) -- whereas it is clear that Snomed expressions can contain context modifying attributes (such as certainty and family history) - so if you can process an expression well enough to find the concept, you should know that just finding the concept is not enough. So not syntactic sugar - just clear processing rules for snomed expressions. | |
| − | |||
| − | * | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 10:21, 17 April 2009
Summary
- How would "safe querying of a RIM-based data model" work? If one pulls an Act (e.g. observation) from the database, what other acts should one include in the response in order for the Act to be accurately securely semantically interpreted?
Related issue: Template Implementation
Analysis
- Bob Dolin: Related acts, context propagation, post-coordinated expressions, negationInd, etc - if not considered in a query, can all result in misrepresented data. I suspect some folks have a false sense of security when using templates, that by understanding the templateId they can safely process the data, even though there may be act relationships, etc.
- Bob Dolin: It makes me nervous when you (Grahame) state that you don't believe it should be the case that you need to understand all the components to safely interpret an act. Consider for instance that in CCD, we represent problem status (which includes values such as "ruled out") as a related act. Under what circumstances would you be comfortable basing decisions on an Act without looking at the (transitive) relationships?
- Grahame: I don't think you can safely ignore related acts. Though we could probably define some limitations to the impact they might make on the meaning of the code.
- Charlie McCay: It has never been robustly stated that you must process and understand all component acts to safely use act.code (indeed I do not believe that that is or should be the case) -- whereas it is clear that Snomed expressions can contain context modifying attributes (such as certainty and family history) - so if you can process an expression well enough to find the concept, you should know that just finding the concept is not enough. So not syntactic sugar - just clear processing rules for snomed expressions.
