Ian McNicoll wrote: > 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. > This is not an unreasonable request - it would not be particularly difficult to implement in the specs or the tools, if we know what to implement. We have to be careful with Snomed licensing issues however when the terminology is snomed...
- thomas _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
