NIH | National Cancer Institute | NCI Wiki  

Error rendering macro 'rw-search'

null

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 25 Next »

Contents of this Page

This page is for capturing the discussion around updating the workflow for value set definition creation.  

Observations

  • LexEVS model and implementation are more complex than requirements of most NCI value sets
  • NCI Thesaurus may have enough assertions to adequately describe value sets without external modeling

Meeting Minutes

Value set requirements gathered through meetings with the NCI stakeholders.  Minutes from the meetings are here:

Requirements

Requirements for the new value set work flow architecture

RequirementPriorityNotes

Better logging to help determine if there were any failures for resolving the 760+ value sets.

  
Resolving all 760+ value sets should be able to finish over night (Rob).  
leafOnly=false
  • We can write a value set loader that ignores these.
  • We can ignore targetToSource=false
 2017.04.24 VS Arch. Meeting
Proposed or Possible RequirementPriorityNotes

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 
  • In browser, value set path, group by standards authority/ sourced terminology, click on collapse.
  • In order to create the top nodes, need to find that annotation.
  • Kim queries against these for Value Set metadata
yes
Resolve discrepancies between number of value set definition files and value sets defined in NCIt This is not necessaryno
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 
  • There are several users.  We should keep this for 6.x
  • Re evaluate if needed after 6.x
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 
  • Return time should be in seconds
yes

Reify relationship restrictions in the resolution of the value set members

  • This would constitute require the triple store/OWL as the source.
 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 mostyes
(Browser) Efficient retrieval VS definition metadata resolution calls 1 second or lessyes
(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.?
Discussion PointsNotes
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.

Open Questions
 
  • No labels