I think SNOMED does provide a syntax, I saw it once somewhere. I think it is in the tig.pdf but I am not sure
Op 25 jan. 2017 00:47 schreef "Diego Boscá" <yamp...@gmail.com>: > I gave you an extreme case ;D > For example, these queries are completely correct, totally > understandable, and can also be stored in current ADL. > > http://diebosto2.pc.upv.es:8888/SnomedQuery/ws/JSONQuery? > query=404684003:363698007=39057004 > > or even the subset > > http://diebosto2.pc.upv.es:8888/SnomedQuery/ws/JSONQuery?query= > <404684003:363698007=39057004 > > Weird codification happens with some symbols, and specially with > spaces or accents on texts. > Maybe we just need to come with an standard way of expressing these > uris (which I believe Snomed already provides a syntax for that...) > > 2017-01-24 23:29 GMT+01:00 Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl>: > > 1) > > Customers just demand SNOMED code, Nictiz gives them in their > > specifications, and some customers want those specifications to be used. > > > > It are not very complicated expressions, some examples, written by > Nictiz: > > > > Excision of lymph node: Procedure context (attribute) > > > > 58347006:408730004=410534003 <-- Not indicated > > 58347006:408730004=262008008 <-- Not performed > > 58347006:408730004=385671000 <-- Unsuccessful > > > > 2) The canonical form was in one of the emails today. I never use it. > > > > 3) arbitrary > > > > 4) see an email of Diego today, it is very ugly because of all the > > percent-signs. > > > > Sorry, I must get up very early tomorrow. > > > > Best regards > > Bert Verhees > > > > Op 24-1-2017 om 23:29 schreef Thomas Beale: > > > > > > > > > > > > I am a bit late getting to this discussion (and I did see the PR, it's > just > > that Bert's and my idea of a 'quick reaction' are different ;) ... > > > > Michael Lawley's comment is technically the right theoretical > understanding. > > And maybe we should enable it, but first I would want to have a small > > discussion on the following issues: > > > > does it make data less interoperable, on the basis that some recipients > > don't know what to do with post-coord expressions, but they can deal with > > single concepts? > > I think there is a potential of canonical form for post-coord > expressions, > > but I must admin I can't remember the rules about this; > > as Luis pointed out, are some expressions complex enough that we should > > treat them as shared resources rather than putting them inside > archetypes or > > templates? > > what does a post-coord expression look like as a URI? > > > > > > I'm inclined to think we could technically enable it in ADL 1.4 (I assume > > that the URI binding form in ADL 2 takes care of the need there), but I > > think we need to provide some implementation guidance. > > > > Interested in further thoughts. > > > > Bert - do you have examples of kinds of actual post-coordinated > expressions > > you want to support? Who builds them, what do they represent etc? > > > > - thomas > > > > > > On 24/01/2017 11:45, Bert Verhees wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Last week, I mentioned on this list that the Ocean archetype-editor does > not > > allow post-coordinated SNOMED expressions in terminology-bindings. I also > > made some JIRA calls for this, also for an abnormality which was related > to > > this. > > > > I also found out that the LinkEHR archetype-editor has the same problem. > > > > So that made me suspicious, and I looked at the ADL 1.4 specifications, > and > > there it was, it is not allowed in ADL 1.4 tot use post-coordinated > SNOMED > > expressions in terminology-bindings. > > > > I think a repair is necessary, so I made also a JIRA call for this. But I > > did not get any reaction at all. I think however, it is an urgent > problem, > > and it is not hard to repair. It is just a matter of allowing some extra > > characters in the terminology-binding, and to do it right, changing the > spec > > a bit. > > > > Make it ADL 1.4.x (I saw there is a ADL 1.4.2) > > > > It is urgent because ADL 2.x won' t be active on the market very soon. > Most > > knowledge with modelers and tooling will be on ADL 1.4 for some more > time. > > It is urgent because the Netherlands is very pro-SNOMED and many other > > countries are also, and post-coordination is the way to create bindings > for > > items for which is no concept, and it is a future proof binding, because, > > even, when the will come a concept for that expression, that expression > will > > remain valid. > > > > We really need it. > > > > Best regards > > Bert Verhees > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ openEHR-implementers > mailing > > list openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- > implementers_lists.openehr.org > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > openEHR-implementers mailing list > > openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- > implementers_lists.openehr.org > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-implementers mailing list > openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- > implementers_lists.openehr.org >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-implementers mailing list openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org
