ISO/TS 21564:2019

TECHNICAL ISO/TS
SPECIFICATION 21564
First edition
2019-06
Health Informatics — Terminology
resource map quality measures
(MapQual)
Reference number
©
ISO 2019
© ISO 2019
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, or required in the context of its implementation, no part of this publication may
be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting
on the internet or an intranet, without prior written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address
below or ISO’s member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
CP 401 • Ch. de Blandonnet 8
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva
Phone: +41 22 749 01 11
Fax: +41 22 749 09 47
Email: copyright@iso.org
Website: www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
ii © ISO 2019 – All rights reserved

Contents Page
Foreword .iv
Introduction .v
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 1
4 Determinants of map quality . 4
4.1 General . 4
4.2 Terminological resource capacity . 4
4.2.1 General. 4
4.2.2 Determinant 1: Common categorial structure . 4
4.2.3 Determinant 2: Shared semantic domain . 5
4.2.4 Determinant 3: Language and translation . 6
4.3 Equivalence of individual maps . 7
4.3.1 General. 7
4.3.2 Determinant 4: Equivalence identification/Publication . 7
4.3.3 Determinant 5: Equivalence assessment . 7
4.3.4 Determinant 6: Map set outliers . 8
4.4 Building a map set . 9
4.4.1 Map development process . 9
4.4.2 Determinant 7: Clear documentation of the purpose of the map . 9
4.4.3 Determinant 8: Currency of the map . 9
4.4.4 Determinant 9: Business arrangements .10
4.4.5 Determinant 10: Methodology documentation .10
4.4.6 Validation .11
4.4.7 Determinant 13: Decision making — Consensus building process .12
4.4.8 Determinant 14: Tools used to develop or maintain the map .13
4.4.9 Determinant 15: Workforce .14
4.5 Map governance and maintenance .16
4.5.1 Determinant 16: Governance .16
4.5.2 Determinant 17: Map maintenance .16
5 Using map quality determinants .17
5.1 Required determinants .17
5.2 Level of quality .17
5.2.1 Step 1: Establish map quality requirement .17
5.2.2 Step 2: Assess map against requirement .17
5.2.3 Step 3: Calculate the score and actions required .17
6 Use cases .18
6.1 General .18
6.2 Determining requirements for a purpose . .18
6.2.1 General.18
6.3 Direct patient care use case .19
6.3.1 General.19
6.3.2 Direct patient care level of conformance required and rationale .19
6.4 Administrative, financial or service planning use case .20
6.4.1 General.20
6.5 Administrative, financial or service planning level of conformance required and
rationale .21
6.6 Other use cases .22
Annex A (informative) Example of map quality evaluation .23
Bibliography .24
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical
committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of
electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are
described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular, the different approval criteria needed for the
different types of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the
editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www .iso .org/directives).
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of
any patent rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or
on the ISO list of patent declarations received (see www .iso .org/patents).
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation of the voluntary nature of standards, the meaning of ISO specific terms and
expressions related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISO's adherence to the
World Trade Organization (WTO) principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) see www .iso
.org/iso/foreword .html.
This document was prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 215, Health Informatics.
Any feedback or questions on this document should be directed to the user’s national standards body. A
complete listing of these bodies can be found at www .iso .org/members .html.
iv © ISO 2019 – All rights reserved

Introduction
0.1  General
Healthcare organizations and software vendors are increasingly using maps to convert data from one
code system to another code system. In the past, data in health information systems was largely used
for organizations’ administrative planning and decision making. Data captured in Electronic Health
Records (EHR) systems for patient care has a significant impact on patient safety. The use of this data
as the source of data for other purposes and for information exchange in clinical care through the use of
information technology is an emerging problem. Where that data is translated through maps from one
code system to another, the safety and quality issues associated with data use can be significant. The
increasing use of maps is costly.
The objective of this work is to support the definition of quality requirements for map sets to
a) establish standard quality conformance requirements for a map for a purpose,
b) assess the quality of a map for a purpose,
c) guide decision makers in map project requirements and processes, and
d) establish pathways to improvement.
Maps are widely used but the quality of these maps cannot be accurately and consistently assessed and
compared against their intended use. It is not currently possible for decision makers to assess whether
a map will be worth the cost of building and whether the scope and map processes will deliver a map
which is able to meet the intended business case.
[1]
This document is based upon ISO/TR 12300 . Some terminological resources are so different in their
content and purpose that they will never map closely to a resource designed and structured differently.
Therefore, the decision maker might need to consider whether to map at all or to move to a new
terminological resource.
Quality measures consider a wide range of requirements and processes relevant to the creation and
maintenance of data maps and their use (including manual and tool-based mapping), as well as for the
map sets delivered as a result of using that process.
0.2  Stakeholders and audience
This document is focused on the needs of
a) implementers and software vendors developing and implementing maps sets,
b) health information and data managers developing and using maps sets,
c) data users such as researchers, government, decision makers, and
d) developers of map sets including all in mapping teams including terminologists, coders, clinical
users, epidemiologists and statisticians, project managers.
Additionally, the target audience for this document might include
— procurement officers who establish requirements of map product capacity and quality, or
— decision makers to determine and assess resources needed in projects and services associated with
map produce, maintenance or use.
0.3  Challenges of mapping
Healthcare organizations and software vendors are increasingly using maps to convert data from one
terminological resource to another terminological resource. In the past, data in health information
systems was largely used for organizations’ administrative planning and decision making.
Today, maps are being used for a much broader range of use cases and the challenges of their use include
the following:
a) Map purpose — a map built for one purpose might or might not suit use for other purposes. It is
important to establish the purpose and use of a map at the beginning of a project to ensure the best
result when building a map from a source code to a target code. When the purpose changes, the
resultant map content is likely to need to be different.
b) Map accuracy — there are three broad aspects to accuracy. The first is whether the map
development and maintained. The second is how closely the results of applying the map deliver
an outcome consistent in meaning to that of original source data. The third is the ability of the
outcome of the map to be used for the purpose intended.
c) Map effectiveness — Information retrieval is a critical functionality of maps.
The actual consequence of assigned map links imposed between terms of different code schemes
impacts the effectiveness of information retrieval searches. Map purpose and accuracy might both
impact the potential safety and appropriateness of the use of that map in healthcare. If the original
meaning is changed through use of a map, this might impact clinical safety. There is also the
consideration of whether the map is applied consistently to defined data elements in the health record.
The data element in which the original source data is recorded might add meaning to the code allocated
(e.g. family history of condition versus clinical diagnosis of the individual).
Another significant issue is the cost of creation and maintenance of a map and the ongoing risk and
difficulties of maintaining currency of the map.
More information on this topic is available in ISO/TR 12300.
If map quality is neglected, maps will continue to be classified in non-standard ways, increasing barriers
to establishing the purpose, accuracy, effectiveness of the quality of terminological maps. The longer
the international community is without a publication in this area, the more expensive the problem will
be to resolve due to the persistence of legacy metadata and the cost of modifying existing mapping
processes to fit an agreed specification; therefore, a TS solution is highly desirable.
vi © ISO 2019 – All rights reserved

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION ISO/TS 21564:2019(E)
Health Informatics — Terminology resource map quality
measures (MapQual)
1 Scope
This document provides quality requirements for producing a quality map between terminological
systems.
This document establishes measures which can be used to assess the quality and utility of a map
between terminological resources in order to determine the types and levels of measure required for
common use cases in healthcare.
NOTE Examples of such cases include conformity assessment.
2 Normative references
There are no normative references in this document.
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at https: //www .iso .org/obp
— IEC Electropedia: available at http: //www .electropedia .org/
3.1
auto-matching
computational mapping task, undertaken using an algorithm based upon the relationship between
concepts (3.5)
3.2
categorial structure
reduced system of concepts to describe the organization of the semantic categories in a particular
system of concepts
Note 1 to entry: A categorial structure for body structure representation could include the categories for body
system (e.g. skin, digestive) and anatomical location (upper body, abdomen).
3.3
classification
exhaustive set of mutually exclusive categories to aggregate data at a pre-prescribed level of
specialization for a specific purpose
3.4
code system
organized, managed collection of codes each of which has associated designations, meanings and in
some cases relationships, properties or rules
Note 1 to entry: Code systems are often described as collections of uniquely identifiable concepts such as ICD-10,
SNOMED CT and LOINC. Code systems are often established and maintained by authoritative sources such as
standards development organisations.
3.5
concept
unit of knowledge created by a unique combination of characteristics
Note 1 to entry: Concepts are not necessarily bound to particular languages. They are, however, influenced by
the social or cultural background, often leading to different categorizations.
3.6
context
related conditions and situations that provide a useful understanding and meaning of a subject
3.7
currency of the map
map currency
difference between the date of release of the target and source terminological resources and the map
set (3.16)
3.8
determinant
influencing element or factor
3.9
equivalence
semantic equivalence
condition of being equal or the same in value, worth or function
Note 1 to entry: In terminological systems, two concepts are (semantically) equivalent if their domain of meaning
overlaps and their semantic definitions are interpreted as identical. In the context of terminological resources
equivalence and semantic equivalence are often considered as synonyms.
3.10
individual map
index from one term to another, sometimes using rules that allow translation from one representation
to another indicating degree of equivalence
Note 1 to entry: Entry in a map which indicates how to translate from an individual source concept to a target
concept. The term map is often used to indicate a table of individual map entries. It is for this reason that the
individual and map tables are being differentiated. A map is often computable. A map is the outcome of the
mapping process. The use of this term is often used in ways which are confusing. It is essential to always make it
clear whether one is referring to an individual map, or a map table (or set). In SNOMED CT, each individual map
is represented as a row or group of rows in a map reference set. It links a single map source concept code (e.g.
SNOMED CT Concept ID) to one or more codes in a map target (e.g. ICD Code).
3.11
priority map content
individual maps (3.10) in a map set (3.16) which are most important for a use case
Note 1 to entry: Importance might reflect the frequency of use or impact of the specific concepts being mapped.
For example: a propriety map content set might be established to represent the most common diagnoses in
hospitals for morbidity reporting and this could be the priority map content for a map from SNOMED CT to ICD
based classification.
3.12
map
conversion
transformation
cross-map
device which provides an index from one term (3.19) to another, sometimes using rules that allow
translation from one representation to another indicating degree of equivalence (3.9)
Note 1 to entry: The index is used to convert concepts in one code system or representation into concepts in an
alternative code system or representation.
2 © ISO 2019 – All rights reserved

3.13
map quality determinant
attribute of a map (3.12), map development process, or map metadata that is considered a reliable
measure of the suitability of the map to a use case
3.14
map quality measure
quantitative measure of the characteristics and attributes of a map (3.12)
3.15
map source
source mapping
terminology (3.21), coding scheme or classification (3.3) used as the starting point for map production
3.16
map set
map table
group of individual maps (3.10) used to convert a range of entries from source to target code system (3.4)
3.17
mapping
process of defining, building or using a relationship between concepts (3.5) in one coding system to
concepts in another coding system in accordance with a documented rationale, for a given purpose
Note 1 to entry: Quality mapping will produce a usable map table, be a reproducible and understandable process. It
is the relation with the best semantic correspondence between an element in one set and an element in another set.
3.18
semantic domain
semantic space
area of meaning covered by a terminological resource (3.20)
Note 1 to entry: This is used to evaluate the lexical or formal overlap between such resources. In value set
specification this might also be called a value set domain.
Note 2 to entry: Terminology resources can include value sets, code systems, and subsets.
EXAMPLE One code system might have the domain of anatomy while another might have the domain of
disease. Though these are related concepts, the semantic domain of each code system is different.
3.19
term
linguistic representation of a concept (3.5)
Note 1 to entry: A term can contain symbols and have variants, e.g. different forms of spelling terms are members
of a terminology; a defined or limited vocabulary of terms or concepts, for example, ICD, SNOMED CT, LOINC.
3.20
terminological resource
controlled set of terms in healthcare
Note 1 to entry: These terms are usually designed and controlled for use with computers for specific healthcare
purpose, such as data entry, aggregation, retrieval and analysis.
3.21
terminology
structured, human and machine-readable representation of concepts (3.5)
Note 1 to entry: This includes the relationship of the terminology to the specifications for organizing,
communicating and interpreting such a set of concepts. The use of the term terminology in healthcare implies a
terminology that is designed for use in computer systems. The word 'vocabulary' or 'health' or 'medical language'
is used to indicate the broader idea of linguistic representation without the specification of computability.
4 Determinants of map quality
4.1 General
This document defines a set of quality determinants which cover the development and maintenance of
map content, and the precision of the map between source and target content. The precision represents
accuracy but also maintainability and usability.
Each determinant shall be measured separately in order to allow evaluation of purpose for use case,
and in that sense, stand alone. The specific measures are listed for each determinant under "Measure".
The lower the number allocated to the measure, the higher the quality of the map. These measures
are intended to be used to assess the quality of a map. The required level of conformance for each
determinant differs according to the use case for which the map is intended. Clause 5 covers map
quality measurement and requirement specification for specific use cases, explaining how to apply the
determinant measures of map quality.
4.2 Terminological resource capacity
4.2.1 General
To assess the quality of a map, it is necessary to understand the capacity and intent of the source code
system and target code system, and the relationship between how each of these code systems represent
concepts.
4.2.2 Determinant 1: Common categorial structure
Evaluate whether the target and the source terminological resource share the same categorial structure.
This determinant seeks to specify whether the structure of each system is common.
EXAMPLE
If one terminological resource has a structure which includes
— clinical findings,
— substances, and
— events
And the other has a structure of
— body systems
The terminological resources do not share a common categorial structure.
The degree of commonality affects the ability to produce a meaningful map. If there is no categorial
structure, or such a structure is not applied to the terminological resources, the ability to map between
terminological resources is less likely to deliver a high-quality product. The impact upon quality might
differ depending on the intended use case.
Categorial structure represents the structure within a semantic domain. Maps may be developed
across an entire categorial structure or a part of that structure, depending upon the semantic domain
intended for use in the map.
Measure:
0 — source and target terminological resources share the same categorial structure.
4 — source and target do not share the same categorial structure.
4 © ISO 2019 – All rights reserved

4.2.3 Determinant 2: Shared semantic domain
The ability to map one terminological resource to another assumes that each terminological resource
shares a common scope of meaning, i.e. that the code system for apples applies to apples and the second
code system for fruit also includes apples, if each code system does not share some concepts, it is not
possible to produce a meaningful map between these code systems. It is necessary to assess whether
the semantic domains are the same, overlapping, inclusive or without overlap. To evaluate the likely
utility of a map, it is necessary to consider the amount of overlap.
The same semantic domain is where both terminological resources describe the same content, though
they may describe it in different ways, with different categorial structures.
EXAMPLE
a) The categorial structure is different to the thing (the object the intangible concept of an apple – the apple
itself) being described by the code (a code which represents an apple).
b) The semantic domain is different — one is describing the thing and its uses while the second describes the
suitable uses — the intended meanings differ. This provides an overlap of semantic domain which might or
might not impact the quality of the map or the usability of the map.
Terminological resource 1 describes apples as eating or cooking apples, this might include additional attributes
such as apple colour, origin, cultivar, etc.
Terminological resource 2 describes apples by colour and suitable uses.
Each terminological resource describes apples though the categorial structures are different. In the
example of apples, each concept has the attributes of colour and use, which are areas of overlap, between
these terminological resources but do not share other key attributes such as origin, cultivar.
Where the attributes are represented differently in each code system but share a semantic domain, it
can be possible to map these concepts. Table 1 shows a shared semantic domain which would result in a
quality map. Table 2 indicates how shared semantic domain is to be measured.
Table 1 — Example of shared semantic domain
System A System B Meaning
1 M Male
2 F Female
3 I Indeterminate
9 U Unknown or not provided
Table 2 — Measures of semantic domain
Measure Description Example
0: Exact match on semantic domain The source terminological re-
source includes the same semantic
domain as the target terminologi-
cal resource.
1: Fully inclusive overlap of seman- The source terminological resource A classification of fruit includes
tic domain covers all of the target terminologi- apples. A classification of apples is
cal resource and also other concepts completely included in the classifi-
(or vice versa). cation of fruit.
2: Non-inclusive overlap of seman- The source terminological resource A classification of red edible items,
tic domain covers some of the target termino- does include some apples, but not
logical resource, and either code green apples, it also includes items
system may have additional content which are not fruit such as red
beyond the scope of the other. onions.
3: No overlap Where the concepts described by
one terminological resource are not
covered by the second terminologi-
cal resource, a map will be difficult.
It might be possible to map
concepts at a very high level of
abstraction or by establishing some
guidance and rules to be applied
when making mapping decisions
but the outcome will not retain the
meaning of the source when repre-
sented in the target.
Where there is an overlap, it is necessary to assess how much the areas which do not overlap will be
relevant to the map required. If the map only requires the mapping of red apples, the lack of complete
overlap between the two different terminological resources would not impact the quality of the result.
In each of these cases, it is necessary to determine the impact of this compatibility or lack of compatibility
on the outcome of the map for the purpose it is being developed or used.
4.2.4 Determinant 3: Language and translation
A source terminological resource can be available in a specific language (such as English). The target
terminological resource can also be available in that language (English). If one terminological resource
is available in the language required and the other is not, a translation of language shall be undertaken.
It is appropriate to consider the cost of that translation and its maintenance and the potential impact
upon accurate representation of meaning.
If translations have been published by the terminology resource owner, they are more likely to be
accurate than those developed in smaller projects. The governance of the translations process might be
relevant to the assessment of the language quality requirement for the use case. Details of translations
and guidance on their use can be found in ISO 17100.
It is difficult to judge the semantic equivalence in linguistic translation (semantic equivalence). Use the
measures for semantic equivalence that are used in 4.3.
Different standards environments use the term translation and in some, such as HL7 FHIR, it means to
map. A common use case for translation is where a value set is published in English and is translated
and mapped for use in another language. Similarly, if a terminological resource source is in French and
there is a desire to use that code system in English, the terminological resource source shall first be
translated into English. This way, the map is between concepts in the same language.
6 © ISO 2019 – All rights reserved

The translation process firstly requires the translation of the target and or source into the required
language, thereby producing a version of the concepts to be mapped in the required language. Only
after this has been done and verified should the map be created.
Measure:
0 — no translation required, source, target and map are all in the same language.
1 — translation is required from target to source.
4.3 Equivalence of individual maps
4.3.1 General
A map between two different terminological resources will involve a certain amount of compromise.
Identification of equivalence criteria is therefore crucial to establishing a level of acceptability and
safety for use of that map.
4.3.2 Determinant 4: Equivalence identification/Publication
This determinant indicates whether equivalence assessments are published in the map and available
to all users. Each individual map [i.e. each source concept to target concept(s)] shall have equivalence
identified and published. This information is then available when the map is used to provide assistance
in determining the validity of specific individual mapped values. If the meaning is not retained, the
equivalence can be used to assess the level of difference between the original source and the resultant
representation after applying the map. If equivalence is not published with the map set, then it is not
possible to assess the quality of the map for a specific purpose nor to alert the user of the map where
the meaning of a concept might have changed when converted to the target concept representation.
Measure:
0 — equivalence measure is identified and published in the map. This measure may be a more complex,
ontologically based measure than the one identified in Determinant 5: Equivalence assessment.
1 — equivalence measure is available but is not in the published map.
2 — equivalence measures are available but are less specific than those identified in 4.3.3.
4 — no equivalence measures are provided or available.
4.3.3 Determinant 5: Equivalence assessment
There are two types of equivalence assessment. For a given use case one of two equivalence methods
should be selected to assess the quality and utility of the map for a specific purpose.
Either use
a) the median equivalence for the map set, or
b) median equivalence for priority map content.
Equivalence measures are based upon ISO/TR 12300 and are represented in a numeric measure (rather
than a code). This measure can then be arithmetically calculated.
Measure:
0 — equivalent meaning, where the highest quality equivalence is represented by the lowest number, 0
is the ‘best score’.
1 — source is wholly included in target.
2 — source is partially included in target.
3 — source is mapped, however there were many options of possible target and overlaps. The map
produced is a best comparison rather than an actual correspondence. Such a map requires significant
manual input to create and maintain and should be used with care.
4 — no map possible (it is considered that no map is a safer and cheaper option than option 4). For
instance, if it is determined that a map set being established produces many individual maps with
equivalence of no map possible — the creation of the map set should be reconsidered. The resultant
map set is not likely to be safe for clinical use and it would involve fewer resources and expenses not to
attempt a map at all than to produce one of this type.
Map set equivalence — average equivalence [sum equivalence measure for each individual map (row)
(from the full or priority set) divided by the number of individual maps]. Table 3 shows an example of
how the overall equivalence of a map set is represented.
Table 3 — Example of equivalence measures average calculation
Individual map row Equivalence
A 0
B 0
C 1
D 1
E 2
The use of an average is not likely to provide a meaningful evaluation of this determinant, however
median or mode might provide a context which is can be useful in specific use cases.
Where a map is created for a large number of concepts, a subset of the whole map might be considered of
priority if it is used extensively for the most common conditions. In some situations, it is more relevant
to assess the average equivalence for the priority component(s) of the map — rather than to consider
the median equivalence of the whole map — as this impacts the majority of cases.
EXAMPLE Diagnosis map from SNOMED CT to ICD (variant).
This map is considered safe for use to support clinical coding, reporting and financial claims and the most
common conditions are those which will most impact the results obtained. The map users and developers could
agree that a number of common conditions (e.g. 10 000 of a potential 30,000) need to be accurate and represent
high equivalence while the additional conditions are less important and would not significantly impact the utility
of the map for the use case defined.
4.3.4 Determinant 6: Map set outliers
This determinant is used to indicate how much of the map set evaluated for equivalence is within a pre-
determined acceptable range of equivalence. This way, it is possible to assess whether the majority of
the map has the level of equivalence required and only a small number of outliers are outside this limit,
or whether there are many outliers outside that limit.
The percentage applies to whichever (full or priority) map set group the equivalence has been
calculated.
EXAMPLE 1 The way to calculate an outlier value for Table 3, is to identify the measure level at which the
entry is considered an outlier (in this case 2 or over). There is one entry out of 5 entries with an equivalence of
that level. The map shown in Table 3 has an outlier value of 20 % (1/5).
The acceptability of outliers or higher levels of inequality is dependent upon the use case.
EXAMPLE 2 For data used for service planning, 5 % of individual map entries which have equivalence of 2 or
higher (i.e. equivalence which is not an exact match or aggregated match) is acceptable for the use case.
Measure:
8 © ISO 2019 – All rights reserved

0 — no outliers.
1 — 2 — ≥x and 3 — ≥y and 4 — z or greater.
4.4 Building a map set
4.4.1 Map development process
The quality and utility of a map is affected by the processes used to build and maintain the map. These
quality determinants will impact quality according to the intended use of the map. Where a map is used
for one-time conversion of data from a legacy system to a new system, the documentation of the map
process and decisions might have a different focus and impact as there is a low requirement to be able
to replicate the building process to maintain the map. The one-time map documentation is still of value
to ensure consistent methodology throughout the map development.
4.4.2 Determinant 7: Clear documentation of the purpose of the map
A map is developed for a purpose which may or may not be associated with a clinical information
model as well as the terminological resource used. The clear specification of the use case is essential to
determine how to map from source to target, and also to know how and where the application of such a
map is appropriate.
The criteria which should be included in assessing the requirements for this use case and map
conformance include the following:
a) use case has a single purpose which is precisely described;
b) reason for using the map and its intended use;
c) benefits expected from using the mapped data;
d) stakeholders including implementers (such as vendors), and users of the mapped content.
Each of these criteria might impact the utility and quality of the map for a use case. It is necessary that the
evaluation of the map consider the importance of each criterion based upon the business case of the map.
Measure:
0 — the documentation includes all the 4 specified components.
1 — the documentation includes only 3 of the specified components.
2 — the documentation includes only 2 of the specified components.
3 — the documentation includes only 1 of the specified components.
4 — the document does not include any of the specified components.
4.4.3 Determinant 8: Currency of the map
Evaluation should include consideration of the importance and impact of the currency of the map. If the
map represents existing target and source terminological resources consistent with those used in the
current source and target information systems, the accuracy of the map application should be as high as
possible given the equivalence measures of the map. If any of the existing and current target and source
terminological resources are not both using the current versions, then there might be difficulties in
achieving the equivalence required.
Measure:
0 — map reflects current source and target systems used in systems where the map will be applied.
1 — 3 map reflects current source and target systems within a defined time frame of the release of
those systems (assessor to determine the impact of this difference and assign value to weight this risk
appropriately).
4 — map does not reflect current source and target systems.
4.4.4 Determinant 9: Business arrangements
The business arrangement under which a map is developed might impact its quality or maintenance. If
the map is developed by the owner/s of the terminological resources with open harmonisation efforts,
the likely quality might be higher than that done by a single commercial arrangement.
It is necessary to assess whether this determinant might impact the quality of the map for the specific
use case involved.
No measure is provided here. It is up to the user of the map to determine their requirement in this area
with the lower number the lower the potential risk.
EXAMPLE If it is essential that the owner of the source or target code system develop and maintain the map,
this determinant might be measured to have a weight of 0 to reflect that this is the only acceptable map quality
for this determinant.
4.4.5 Determinant 10: Methodology documentation
The methodology for development of the map shall be specified clearly and documented. There are
many methods which can be applied, and each should be described to a level where that method
could be reliably repeated to maintain the map. This determinant reflects the quality of methodology
specification, not the actual methodology which is assessed by other determinants. Documentation
should clearly indicate the versioning and update processes to be used to maintain the map. This
documentation is important if the map is to apply to historical data or to data which changes into the
future, but if the map is applied once to convert data to the source terminological system and the ‘old’
data is no longer maintained this may not impact the quality of the map for this use case.
Documentation should include details of
a) t
...