I think it would be useful to identify the root cause of the translation challenges we are discussing in this group in order to address them in an efficient way. I propose some questions to be asked in a predetermined order:
1 Understandability: Do we understand the meaning of the concepts given their FSNs, relationships, attributes (and text definitions)? In other words: Do we understand the distinction between two or more concepts?
We don’t assess issues regarding the target langauge expressivity, only the semantics of the concepts in the ontology.
If the semantics are unclear, it is a content issue of SNOMED CT. If the semantics is clear, we proceed to the next question:
2 Is the distinction (i.e. semantics) clinical useful and relevant?
We might understand the meaning of the concepts, but they are not deemed as useful and relevant (for the clinicians).
This might be explained by the logical structure of SNOMED CT, i.e. the distinction between concepts as clinical artefacts and ontological artefacts. The concepts might not be relevant for a clinicians, but maybe for other user groups?
What is the use case of including the concepts? Is this rather an implementation issue than a translation issue?
3 Language granularity
We understand the difference between concepts, and they are deemed as useful and relevant, but the distinction is not expressed by different terms in the target language.
How to proceed in this case is an issue of translation, not content in SNOMED CT. Or? Different approaches or strategies can be applied, including neologisms.