Page History
...
Proposed or Possible Requirement | Priority | Notes | Is Requirement? (Yes/No) |
---|---|---|---|
Remove Dependency on Value Set Definitions 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 Sets from NCIt source. | There are still some value sets that need to be approached with the old value set method. | 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 | |
Provide example code for regular API level access (CodedNodeGraph example) of value set members | |||
Provide support for Neoplasm like value sets (Hierarchical) | |||
Do we need to define A8 every time ... | |||
(Browser) Provide efficient way to differentiate between all coding schemes and retrieve label (CS name) and version of all resolved value set coding schemes |
| yes | |
(Browser) Maintain the VS definition metadata around the source and description. |
| yes | |
(Browser) Auto generate value set definitions from the NCIT source | yes | ||
Reify VS restrictions in the resolution of the vs hierarchy | May need to discuss this with Larry/Gilberto | no | |
(Browser) Efficient resolution of VS graphs as it pertains to hierarchies | Seconds | yes
| |
(Browser) Efficient results to VS resolutions | yes | ||
(Browser) Efficient retrieval VS definition metadata resolution calls | 1 second or less | yes |
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 |
Do we still need value set definitions (in the DB) | 2017.04.24 VS Arch. Meeting - Does the browser still require them? |
Open Questions
Questions that need further research or consideration.
...