Hi! Would it be a good or bad idea to have URI:: as a valid terminology prefix in openEHR terminology bindings, with the intention to host...
1. "local" bindings that are not foreseen to be of public general use: URI::http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~oloft/terminologies/odont-123/local-Mucos-txtur 2. Potentially universally interesting terminologies that already have official URIs but do not (yet?) have openEHR-defined prefix: URI::urn:miriam:obo.go:GO%3A0045202 I guess opening up for any URIs would lead to a risk of having double representations (URI+openEHR-prefix) for the same thing, like... URI::urn:UMLS/CID=C0037658 ...and the example URI::urn:miriam:obo.go:GO%3A0045202 is just one of several URI-ways to point out an entry in the gene ontology.. What are the other pitfalls and/or benefits? I guess there will probably never be only one ultimate updated registry fitting every purpose, not from openEHR, not from EuroRec not from anybody else. Best regards, Erik Sundvall erisu at imt.liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-227579 P.s. Remember that URIs include both URLs and URNs On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 09:09, Gerard Freriks <gfrer at luna.nl> wrote: > Dear all, > The European Institute for Health Records has created a registry of coding > systems. > In the (near) future they expect to be the place where coding systems and > their meta-information are registered so an URL and unique identifying > number will suffice. > Will this be the way to go? > Gerard > > > -- <private> -- > Gerard Freriks, MD > Huigsloterdijk 378 > 2158 LR Buitenkaag > The Netherlands > T: +31 252544896 > M: +31 620347088 > E: gfrer at luna.nl > > Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary > Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 > > > > > On 1, Dec, 2008, at 5:26 , Koray Atalag wrote: > > So custom/local terminologies can be handled this way and the implementation > will be left to developers....BUT this may result in different > implementations which may render interoperability in the long run.... > > So I suggest a sub-section within ontology section where used terminologies > are declared explicitly; i.e. "umls": 2008AA version of NLM UMLS knowledge > sources. Perhaps an URI and other details can be specified (i.e. WSDL). I > think it is easier for the community to agree on such a naming convention. > > Custom local terminologies can be declared this way and you can create > terminology names for use in term/constraint bindings.Perhaps creating a > keyword (i.e. CustomTerminology) might be a good idea so that these names do > not interfere with formal names. > > Cheers, > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > >
