Page History

...

Connects two versioned coding schemes
Is versioned itself.
Should be named in a descriptive fashion (e.g. MDR12 to SNOMEDCT_2010_07_31 Mappings).
Significant amount of metadata exists at this level
Characterize map sets (complexity, completeness, content domain, “officialness”, ..)
Consider metadata to track whether mappings are curated or not.
Consider metadata to track whether mappings are generated (and not reviewed) or not.
Map set metadata should indicate whether map rank is important, useful, or even present.

1.2 Group of Mappings (a mapping subset, or search results, or a page of listings)

...

"from" and "to" codes (or expressions of codes)
Represented as an association with qualifiers for other semantically important information
If target is an expression, represented as an “association to data”
Have “default preferred name” in the event that a "from"/"to" code cannot be resolved in a loaded coding scheme
"map rank" may be a standard part of the model.  If so, values should be normalized, so that 1 always means "best" and increasing numbers represent lowering quality (exactly how much lower and why is map set dependent).  A "map rank" threshold can be chosen by an application, so that it pays attention only to the "highest quality" mappings as defined by that application.  Because the values are map set and application specific - algorithms/decisions used are use-case specific.

1.4 Mapping attributes

Any information about a mapping than what directly fits the “association” object model will be rendered as attributes. Hopefully these attributes will have standard names across different types of map set loader. In other words – we can define the semantics of mapping association qualifiers so that particular ones are used to always represent the same aspect of some kind of mapping semantics.

...