• Findings and Proposals
  • API Services
  • LexEVS Model Changes - OWL2

Discussion Points: 

EVS API Services

• Determine a level of governance and architecture for EVS related services.
• Work with the caDSR team to transition from remote API to REST Services. (TBD?)
• Propose ability to capture usage statistics for analytics of what types of queries are being run, content searched, etc.
• Determine a REST service for Metathesaurus and determine best how to support the end users.
• Continued transition of stand alone coding systems to EVS REST API.
• Transition of LexEVS search knowledge to the EVS API development team
  • utilize the services spreadsheet
• Provide LexEVS resources to help with EVS API.
• Investigate infrastructure considerations (cloud environments?).
• Single Service coverage (provide single search mechanism)
  • REST Service for Meta
  • EVS REST API
  • LexEVS API

Discussion:

• Users will change and will need to be accommodated.
• Additional terminology requirements will also need to be accommodated.
• There are no immediate needs that need to be satisfied.
• Mapping (anticipated needs/requirements)
  • Mappings between models - data elements (OMOP, PCORI, etc) will also need to map to terminologies. (cancer data aggregator)
  • Mapping from LexEVS sources to external sources. (capture as a JIRA item)
  • "rule-based" mapping (capture as JIRA item)
    • Model to represent the map
    • API services for the mapping
    • Method of mapping and capturing learning algorithms(?)
• Priorities
  • Continued MetaT support
  • Continued stand-alone terminology support
  • Mapping Support - mapping to external sources
  • Evaluation and propose best approach (EVS REST API and LexEVS team collaboration)
    • Identify the queries for MetaT
    • Improve and extend current functionalities
    • Pain points
    • Determine best case suggestions
    • Consider mapping use cases

Model Changes (OWL)

• Complex Classes need to be addressed somehow - LexEVS or not.
• Micro services should be considered for providing services to provide OWL content (micro service using the triple store)

Discussion:

• Not an immediate requirement
• Implementation would be fairly significant.

Admin UI

• Continue to use the GUI as it is
• Consider to look at the dashboard viewer (query)

Discussion:

• not an immediate requirement.