I re-opened this question about organizing LOINC based on new information from Cerner. This seems worth a heads-up to all of gpc-dev.
________________________________________ From: GPC Informatics [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 10:14 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Dan Connolly Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Nathan Graham Subject: Re: [gpc-informatics] #95: LOINC metadata hierarchy depth/count issues #95: LOINC metadata hierarchy depth/count issues -----------------------+----------------------------- Reporter: huhickman | Owner: nathan.wilson Type: problem | Status: reopened Priority: major | Milestone: data-stds-plan Component: data-stds | Resolution: Keywords: | Blocked By: 68 Blocking: | -----------------------+----------------------------- Changes (by dconnolly): * cc: Nate.Apathy@…, ngraham (added) * status: closed => reopened * resolution: wontfix => Comment: Nathan (Wilson), Hubert, we I notice the Cerner ontology (#58) seems to handle LOINC differently. Would you please take a look and see if you think it's something we should perhaps adopt? Nate (Apathy), did Cerner derive that hierarchy automatically from something? Or did Cerner spend engineering effort to curate it? -- Ticket URL: <http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/95#comment:5> gpc-informatics <http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/> Greater Plains Network - Informatics _______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
