General reporting figures are confusing

XMLWordPrintableJSON

    • Type: Change Request
    • Resolution: Persuasive with Modification
    • Priority: Medium
    • Genomics Reporting (FHIR)
    • STU3
    • Clinical Genomics
    • STU
    • (profiles) [deprecated]
    • 1.2
    • Hide

      WGM Jan 2019: Persuasive With Mod

      Consensus: Remove Descriptive Genetic Finding. It was to support cytogenetics, and this profile was removed previously.

      Consensus: keep Cytogenetic Nomenclature for now, but we could explore communicating it as a component in another profile. Rename Cytogenetic Nomenclature to "Structural Genetic Finding"

      Show
      WGM Jan 2019: Persuasive With Mod Consensus: Remove Descriptive Genetic Finding. It was to support cytogenetics, and this profile was removed previously. Consensus: keep Cytogenetic Nomenclature for now, but we could explore communicating it as a component in another profile. Rename Cytogenetic Nomenclature to "Structural Genetic Finding"
    • Patrick W / Clem M: 16-0-1
    • Enhancement
    • Non-compatible

      Figures 3 and 5 are confusing and will lead to mis-implementations and frustration. Would like to flatten them some what if it is at all possible. a. Put more in Common properties at same level b. Why do we have to cluster descriptive and computable findings in distinct objects? Their computability will be obvious from the data type. There are few descriptive observations and building structure to distinguish them adds to the complexity c. ISCN is just another variable and shouldn't need the complex structure to carry it. d. Recognize that complex variants could also be haplotypes any way to merge them another

            Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            clemmcdonald
            Watchers:
            2 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: