I can do a short show and tell on concept paths in i2b2 and why the path is the most important piece on May 6th, if needed.
On a related note, I've been playing with SHRINE recently and it might be a good tool to look at for holding our local mappings, even if we didn't link our nodes together. I can do a quick demo of that as well, if people are interested. Phillip Sent from my iPhone On May 4, 2014, at 10:34 AM, "Dan Connolly" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: This proposal, like the previous one, directly constrains the patient_dimension, provider_dimension, and visit_dimension. Milestone_27_TestSQLv2.docx<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/attachment/ticket/114/Milestone_27_TestSQLv2.docx><https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/raw-attachment/ticket/114/Milestone_27_TestSQLv2.docx> added Those constraints conflict with practices and preferences at our site (and, as I recall, several others). Plus, those constraints don't specify the concept paths (c_fullname in metadata tables) that would actually appear in the relevant queries. Agreement on paths is necessary and sufficient for our work, as far as I can tell. Given what I've seen so far, I disagree with any proposal that directly constrains the i2b2 table schema. I tried to explain how paths are sufficient in last week's call, and I agreed to elaborate in detail. But as I mentioned, I'm at a conference this week, so I'm not sure I'll have it done in time for the May 6 call. -- Dan _______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev ________________________________ UT Southwestern Medical Center The future of medicine, today.
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
