Page History
...
Proposed or Possible Requirement | Priority | Notes | Is Requirement? (Yes/No) |
---|---|---|---|
Remove Dependency on value set definition files for NCIt defined Value Sets | There are still some value sets that need to be approached with the old value set method. | yes | |
Generate All NCIt sourced value set coding schemes from NCIt source in LexEVS (DB) | There are still some value sets that need to be approached with the old value set method. | yes | |
(Browser) Auto generate value set definitions from the NCIT source |
| yes | |
Resolve discrepancies between number of value set definition files and value sets defined in NCIt | This is not necessary | no | |
Provide acceptable substitutions for value set URI's and other metadata that is defined in the source (List in other rows as necessary) | yes | ||
Maintain Resolved Value Set Coding Scheme API as interface |
| yes | |
Provide concurrent value set loading capability | This was originally a suggestion on how to speed the load up. This could still be a possibility that we should look at going forward, | no | |
Provide programmatic access to value set definition XML files | We need efficient way to retrieve this day (Kim)
| no | |
Do we need to define A8 as an association each time | no | ||
(Browser) Provide efficient way to retrieve label (CS name) and version of all resolved value set coding schemes |
| yes | |
Reify relationship restrictions in the resolution of the value set members
| May need to discuss this with Larry/Gilberto | ? | |
(Browser) Efficient resolution of VS graphs as it pertains to hierarchies | Seconds | yes | |
(Browser) Efficient results to VS resolutions | sub second for most | yes | |
(Browser) Efficient retrieval VS definition metadata resolution calls | 1 second or less | yes | |
(Browser) Efficient search by code or name - query for value set that this concept matches | This needs further definition/discussion with Kim. | ? | |
(Browser) Source specific information - need to call LexEVS API for each vs Iterator without having to further query | Kim mentioned this when you click the value set button. Needs further definition and investigation | ? |
Discussion Points | Notes |
---|---|
Who are the stakeholders and end users of value sets | |
Define what end user interface is (Shell script, Rest Service, Browser based GUI) | |
Define performance or other considerations that require a move to triple store or OWL API (For Example: Do value sets need full OWL expressivity) | |
Will non NCIt sourced value sets continue to use legacy value set definitions? (more a scope statement question) | |
What considerations/requirements drive the development of an architecture that encompasses hierarchical value sets and new resolution mechanisms? | |
Create OWL source for some/all values sets from LexEVS api or other source? (OWL export of value sets) | |
What user needs around the report writer generate requirements for LexEVS or the LexEVS team | |
Does Excel spread sheet generation fall into the scope of LexEVS value set resolution or otherwise generate requirements for the LexEVS team | |
Do the users/stakeholders in the value set API have any new requirements beyond those already stated | |
How to identify identical VS for different agencies. They need different URIs. | 2017.04.24 VS Arch. Meeting - There is information of the agency is in the annotation on that concept. This information can be used to create the unique URI that represents the agency. |
What does it mean, in terms of requirements, to provide support for Neoplasm like value sets (Hierarchical) |
Open Questions
Questions that need further research or consideration.
Define use of Reification for end users so that we can understand whether queries or API's need triple store or OWL API support. (Gilberto and Larry would have to answer this question) |