Hi Mattias,
I do appreciate these difficulties but if the definition of the binding changes the binding itself may be obsolete. I agree the comment idea is less than satisfactory, it would be better if the term binding contained the rubric as well as the term code for exactly the same reasons that the rubric must always accompany the term code in DV_CODED_TEXT. Managing Snomed-CT is going to be a very tricky exercise. Using archetypes + bindings offers a very powerful way of managing Snomed where semantic precision is very important e.g. decision support. Having tools that will let us design and document these bindings will be a powerful way of persuading those who have yet to understand the value of the archetype approach. Having the term rubrics available is an important part of cross-checking that the correct binding has been applied, both for the original author (where terminology services might well be available) and when the archetype and bindings are reviewed by a wider clinical audience (when such services may not be available). Regards, Ian From: Mattias Forss [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 December 2006 14:56 To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: Suggestions re Term binding in Archetype Editor Hi Ian, Archetypes are designed to be loosely coupled with terminology so that they can be used when there are no terminology resources available. If we have comments of the bindings, we get another problem because if the definition of the binding changes (for example a translated term is redefined in a terminology) the comment will be obsolete. We currently have to rely on the archetypes' local terminology to get the approximate rubrics when there are no terminology resources available. Regards, Mattias 2006/12/18, Ian McNicoll <ian at gpacc.co.uk>: Hi Sam, I appreciate the "language" difficulty here, given the ontology separation in ADL. However, in the UK context, the ability to document bindings to Snomed-CT with clear documentation, thereof, will be crucial to promoting OpenEHR. The design philosophy for DV_CODED_TEXT is that the raw term is never sent without the rubric, and I think somehow this needs to be extended to the binding terms as it is by no means certain that access to a terminology server will be a given in all the environments where ADL is being used as a design / documentation language. Would it be possible to allow the term bindings to be commented with the term name in the native authored language(as the current dADL entries are commented with the node name )? The current editor seems to strip out the any comments from the term bindings. This would at least let the rubrics be captured and displayed in any documentation. Ian From: Sam Heard [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 December 2006 00:22 To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: Suggestions re Term binding in Archetype Editor Version 1 candidate does this and will be out soon Ian - it does not include the SNOMED text as this will be different in different languages. Sam Ian McNicoll wrote: Hi, I am currently working my way slowly through the Scottish Cardiac dataset, converting it to archetypes as proof-of-concept, using the OE editor. Term binding (to SNOMED) will be a crucial aspect from our perspective, especially binding local (interface) terms to SNOMED concepts. This would be much easier within the editor if the Term bindings screen displayed the node name as well as the Node ID, as it is easy to forget which local term you are trying to bind by the time you have rummaged around in Snomed for a bit!!. The "Choose Nodes" dialog might also be a little easier if the Node parent name and Node name were included. When only the node name is visible this can cause confusion if similar local terms are used for different nodes e.g. "Not known". Finally in the ADL, I think it would be very helpful to be able to include the text of the Bound term text as well as its code. This would allow much easier checking for errors and documenting I have done this by enclosing the bound term text in [] for now. e.g. term_binding = < ["SNOMED-CT"] = < items = < ["at0000"] = <[SNOMED-CT::229819007 [Tobacco use and Exposure]]> ["at0006"] = <[SNOMED-CT::?Non Tobacco user]> ["at0009"] = <[SNOMED-CT::]> ["at0011"] = <[SNOMED-CT::[Ex-smoker] 8517006]> ["at0012"] = <[SNOMED-CT::[Current non-smoker] 160618006]> Regards, Ian _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- Dr. Sam Heard MBBS, FRACGP, MRCGP, DRCOG, FACHI CEO and Clinical Director Ocean Informatics Pty. Ltd. Adjunct Professor, Health Informatics, Central Queensland University Senior Visiting Research Fellow, CHIME, University College London Chair, Standards Australia, EHR Working Group (IT14-9-2) Ph: +61 (0)4 1783 8808 Fx: +61 (0)8 8948 0215 _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20061218/91cb6a2c/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
