Archetypes do allow for the possibility of an internal code set - each internal code can map to one or more terminologies - analogous to the "list of codes typed in '123123', '3242342', '123123'".
This solution is probably the best for very small sets such as patient sex or similar. __________________________________ Dr Hugh Leslie MBBS, Dip. Obs. RACOG, FRACGP, FACHI Director and Senior Clinical Consultant Ocean Informatics Pty Ltd M: 0404 033 767 E: hugh.leslie at oceaninformatics.biz Skype: hughleslie > -----Original Message----- > From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org > [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of > Andrew Patterson > Sent: Thursday, 4 January 2007 12:23 AM > To: qamarr at cs.manchester.ac.uk; For openEHR technical discussions > Subject: Re: Preprint re: SNOMED codes > > > The system at present is performing mappings on pre-modeled > archetypes > > depriving it the luxury of having access to the author. > > This is what I meant by the 'split' case - a split between > the people/group constructing the archetype, and the people > doing the binding (in this Sam writing the archetype and you > guys doing the terminology stuff). It doesn't lessen your > points about the difficulties of doing the terminology > mapping - I just wanted to clarify that the plan in the 'best > case' is that there wouldn't be so much of a split (i.e. > you'd be in communication with the people writing the > archetype, or it would all be done within one tool by the same author) > > > I agree that this URL feature sounds a bit complex. Not having > > complete knowledge of the Ocean methodology and objective makes it > > rather difficult to comment though. However, 'is_a' trees are only > > part of the solution to the binding/mapping process. There > are a few archetypes that have 'is_a' > > terms and can be dealt with in a less complex way i.e. > without the use > > of URL's. > > Other than actually enumerating the term codes in the ADL > file, what other mechanism is there other than URLs? > > > Though am not sure whether the Ocean team had something > else in mind > > when using URLs. > > The URL system is not inherently bad - it solves the problem > in a relatively clean way that allows lots of room for future > developments in terminologies without constraining the > solutions. I just worry that with complex terminologies like > snomed being used more often it may be useful to have an > inbetween solution i.e. > > simplest) > list of codes typed in '123123', '3242342', '123123' > * moderate *) > simple langauge like "limit depth 5 (is_a('102323','arm fracture'))" > complex) > http://www.termserver.com/saved_query?realm=uk&concept_root=1231231 > > Andrew > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > __________ NOD32 1954 (20070103) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
