Hi Andy, We have noticed that MVP uses the comment field in the concept_map table. We are considering using that to determine the right map type in 1.9.
I ran the following query select comment, count(*) from concept_map group by comment; The results are below. I have also added corresponding map types from 1.9, but I am not sure if they match right now. We could correct them if needed. +----------------------+----------+ | comment | count(*) | +----------------------+----------+ | NULL | 15516 | | From Excel | 2381 | | From UMLS RxNORM Map | 3010 | | Map Type: 1 | 46897 | *(SAME-AS)* | Map Type: 10 | 1 | *(Has specimen)* | Map Type: 17 | 5 | *(Direct device)* | Map Type: 19 | 3 | *(Direct substance)* | Map Type: 2 | 1880 | *(NARROWER-THAN)* | Map Type: 24 | 18 | *(Finding method)* | Map Type: 3 | 30841 | *(BROADER-THAN)* | Map Type: 4 | 126 | *(Associated finding)* | Map Type: 5 | 81 | *(Associated morphology)* | Map Type: 6 | 19 | *(Associated procedure)* | Map Type: 7 | 2 | *(Associated with)* +----------------------+----------+ 14 rows in set (2.12 sec) Here's the proposed migration algorithm: (1) if the comment matches "Map Type: (\d+)" then use that to determine the map type, and drop it (2) otherwise move the comment to concept_reference_term.description (even though it doesn't really belong there) (3) delete duplicate concept_reference_terms (having same source and source_code), though this means we may lose some concept_map.comment data The reason for these changes is: TRUNK-3296: Found multiple reference terms https://tickets.openmrs.org/browse/TRUNK-3296 -Rafał _________________________________________ To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [email protected] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the body (not the subject) of your e-mail. [mailto:[email protected]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
