Stream: terminology
Topic: CodeSystem vs Valueset Disignation use[age]
Lin Zhang (Sep 27 2020 at 06:29):
Do we need consolidate the following two terminology resources:
http://build.fhir.org/valueset-designation-use.html
Code Display
900000000000003001 Fully specified name
900000000000013009 Synonym (core metadata concept)
https://terminology.hl7.org/1.0.0/CodeSystem-designation-usage.html
Code Display Definition
display Display A deisgnation suitable for display to an end-user
Lin Zhang (Sep 27 2020 at 06:35):
According the note in the spec, the valueset is snomed-specific.
Peter Jordan (Sep 27 2020 at 07:11):
There is an open Jira ticket relating to this issue and it was discussed at one of the breakout sessions of the Terminology Services Track at the recent FHIR Connectathon. One of several Zulip also relating to this topic.
As you note, the Designation Use Value Set contains 2 (free-to-use) SNOMED CT concepts. However, they are acceptability, rather than usage concepts and difficult to apply with regard to concepts from other code systems.
Michael Lawley (Sep 27 2020 at 07:38):
Well, one is a ValueSet and the other is a CodeSystem so they can't be combined. However, the ValueSet http://hl7.org/fhir/ValueSet/designation-use should include all the codes from CodeSystem http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/designation-usage in addition to the two SNOMED CT codes.
Michael Lawley (Sep 27 2020 at 07:40):
I suspect it might also be a good idea not to define the ValueSet http://terminology.hl7.org/ValueSet/designation-usage since people might accidentally use it instead of the more appropriate http://hl7.org/fhir/ValueSet/designation-use
Peter Jordan (Sep 27 2020 at 09:06):
@Michael Lawley - do you know where the Designation usage Code System and Value Set are actually used in the FHIR specification. Looking at the Code System and Value Set definitions, I can only see references to Designation Use. Designation Usage has obviously been added to the UTG IG - which states that it's the "Preferred value set for Condition Categories."...but looking at the Condition Resource, it's not used in the Condition Category VS. What am I missing here?
Lin Zhang (Sep 27 2020 at 13:37):
Clearly, "Condition" might be a "copy&paste" typo
Lin Zhang (Sep 27 2020 at 13:39):
And as I know, the Concept's designation.use uses the Code System:
https://terminology.hl7.org/1.0.0/CodeSystem-designation-usage.html
Grahame Grieve (Sep 27 2020 at 21:46):
difficult to apply with regard to concepts from other code systems.
The SNOMED concepts there are not expected to be applied to other code systems. They are only in that value set because you use them with snomed, and so you are otherwise licensed to use snomed.
Michael Lawley (Sep 27 2020 at 22:46):
Really? The concept of "synonym" is not applicable in CodeSystems other than SNOMED?
LOINC also has a notion of Fully Specified Name if I am not mistaken.
Grahame Grieve (Sep 27 2020 at 22:49):
The concepts are applicable, but I don't think that the SNOMED terms are applicable. I think it's arguable because SNOMED doesn't do good definitions, but precisely for that reason, I think that you should not say that those snomed concepts have any precise definition other than for the SNOMED concepts where they are already used
Michael Lawley (Sep 27 2020 at 22:58):
@Peter Jordan https://jira.hl7.org/browse/UP-102 is probably the reference you need. Not the link to the V2 CodeSystem 0544 no longer works, but if you track it down and look at the JSON / XML definition you'll find translations that reference http://terminology.hl7.org/CodeSystem/designation-usage
Rob Hausam (Sep 28 2020 at 04:54):
Also look at (and please consider commenting on) UP-107.
Robert McClure (Sep 28 2020 at 19:54):
Seems we've twisted something simple into quite a knot. We discussed this at connectathon I believe. While I can not find any notes for the breakout on Designations, I seem to remember that there were a number of folks that shared @Grahame Grieve concern that DesignationUse was specific to SNOMED CT code system use exclusively and that we need more designation "types" in what we should be using everywhere: DesignationUsage. There does seem to be two UTG JIRA issues: 102 and 107 but lets follow @Rob Hausam advice and comment on 107. Then let's get this fixed.
Rob Hausam (Sep 28 2020 at 20:16):
I have some notes from the Designation session that are still unpublished until I had a few moments to finish organizing them somewhat more clearly (and a chance to review the recording to pick up what I may have missed writing down). I will go ahead and publish the notes that I have and then hopefully can add any additions from the recording soon.
Rob Hausam (Sep 28 2020 at 20:25):
I've now published what I had. As I said, I'll try to check the recording and add to it. And particularly if you see your name listed you may want to review/correct/add what is missing. @Daniel Karlsson @Peter Jordan @Grahame Grieve @Swapna Abhyankar
Grahame Grieve (Sep 28 2020 at 20:30):
I think the general agreement is that it;'s well past time we defined a good set of designations, and say that the SCT designations are only appropriate for use with SCT concepts (actually the second part isn't so general)
Lin Zhang (Sep 28 2020 at 23:32):
And other sources such as SKOS and OBO have already defined a handful of designation usages for general purposes.
Correction: I thought they had...
Grahame Grieve (Sep 28 2020 at 23:32):
what are those?
Lin Zhang (Sep 28 2020 at 23:42):
https://owlcollab.github.io/oboformat/doc/GO.format.obo-1_2.html
[Quote]
synonym
This tag gives a synonym for this term, some xrefs to describe the origins of the synonym, and may indicate a synonym category or scope information.
The value consists of a quote enclosed synonym text, an optional scope identifier, an optional synonym type name, and an optional dbxref list, like this:
synonym: "The other white meat" EXACT MARKETING_SLOGAN [MEAT:00324, BACONBASE:03021]
The synonym scope may be one of four values: EXACT, BROAD, NARROW, RELATED. ...
Lin Zhang (Sep 28 2020 at 23:45):
SKOS Lexical Labels
https://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-skos-reference-20090818/#labels
Lin Zhang (Sep 28 2020 at 23:50):
But, OBO's describe the synonymous levels/degrees. SKOS' more look like acceptabilities.
Lin Zhang (Sep 28 2020 at 23:56):
Another perspective/dimension: full name(esp. FSN), long common name, short name, abrreviation(including acronym)...
Lin Zhang (Sep 28 2020 at 23:59):
And official/legal names should be members of the acceptability set.
Lin Zhang (Sep 29 2020 at 00:07):
So we might need more than one sets for these dimensions.
Grahame Grieve (Sep 29 2020 at 01:07):
the SKOS concept of "hidden" seems like a good addition for our work. @Rob Hausam (though i think there's a much better name than that). The OBO ones look like they belong on ConceptMap not Concepts
Rob Hausam (Sep 29 2020 at 12:58):
I agree that we could consider using the SKOS lexical labels (I had also thought that we might use the SKOS relations for ConceptMap, but we didn't end up doing do that). We could use them directly or align our terms with them. It's usually good practice to use a standard. :)
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
