Comparisons: CompLOINC subsets derived only from LOINC or LOINC-SNOMED

[joeflack4]

Sub-tasks

• LOINC (I believe this was adequately addressed in Class depth && source representations #195)
• LOINC-SNOMED Ontology

About

AKA apples-to-apples comparison.

We want to be able to see precisely how much CompLOINC's enhancements (mainly grouping classes) enhance either LOINC or LOINC-SNOMED by themselves. To do this, we should build and reason new CompLOINC variations. One variation will include only LOINC-SNOMED as a source, and the other will include only LOINC as a source.

LOINC-only variation specifics

Context: Implementer's meeting notes from 5/22

In single OWL, for 6500 LOINC-SNOMED mapped parts, we want their LOINC hierarchy from LOINC tree browser and their LOINC label (all labels). If it includes parts that are not in the original 6500, that’s ok. Entire ancestor closure. Save as OWL. Then can look at apples to apples.

Building
I think steps are:

1. robot merge loinc-part-hierarchy-all.owl and loinc-part-list-all.owl
2. robot filter only the parts that are in LOINC-SNOMED mappings.

[joeflack4]

The paper should also be updated to talk about how these apples-to-apples variants were used:

comploinc-merged-reasoned-LOINC-primary.owl
comploinc-merged-reasoned-LOINC-supplementary.owl
comploinc-merged-reasoned-LOINCSNOMED-primary.owl
comploinc-merged-reasoned-LOINCSNOMED-supplementary.owl

I added a comment in the paper where this discussion should go.

[joeflack4]

I believe this was adequately addressed by:

• Fix indirect axioms variations && subclass axioms analysis updates #254