SVS Future Considerations

The future considerations for the ITI SVS profile are:

1. The SVS Profile does not contain a Value Set Registry. The existence of a Registry would help refining the search and the use in general of the SVS profile (versioning, text searching, etc).

2. This profile is not addressing mapping a Value Set onto an existing or internal Value Set or Code System at this time and may be addressed in future text.

3. The language will not be a parameter in the Value Set retrieve transaction. The language hence forth will be referred to locale specific name. In a bilingual country, for example, the locale specific name can be a very useful feature. Since the name of the description will have to be pushed to a separate layer and the language will have to be bound to another layer, this is considered a separate look-up process, and it is not part of the XML binding. This functionality can be addressed via the Registry, and the Registry is not part of this year’s profile’s scope. The locale specific name cannot be part of the Value Set.

4. The use portable media to exchange Value Sets will be considered in the future.

5. The white paper Publish and Subscribe that is under development this year could provide a solution to the notification problem. The NAV profile is not used since the update of a Value Set does not happen that often. The profile Publish and subscribe is better for solving the versioning problem, and the NAV profile is better to alert the users about the availability of a new Value Set. When a Registry will be put into place, these issues could be addressed. The mechanism proposed is a human notification (send an email or telephone).

6. The versioning abilities will be addressed in the next cycle. The method of update will also be discussed when the standard CTS2 will become available. Two possible update modes were discussed: either importing a whole new Value Set or having an incremental change from one version to the other. The importance of having a differential update is of importance when the Value Set source publishes updates in that way, for example CTP codes. This might be an implementation issue.

7. Since a Value Set Registry is not used, the following topics are considered for the future: • The mapping a Value Set onto an existing or internal Value Set or Code System. • A way of expressing the ontology or classification within a Vocabulary (Concept) Domain • The obsolete terms within a version will have to be handled in the future (this issue is of interest for new implementations).

8. There is a possibility of using the developing standard CTS2 in conjunction with the SVS profile.