Hi Erik,
As you know Ocean has been doing a lot of work making terminology and
openEHR Archetype work. Hugh Grady is the best to describe this but in
summary we are proposing the use of terminology URIs for bindings.
Bindings can reference a whole terminology, a branch of a terminology
hierarchy or a complex query which extracts specific subset of a
terminology.
To identify these there at least four identifiers; terminology ID, subset
ID, query name and query version id. There are other parameters such as
language and terminology version.
In simply cases where you just want to reference a terminology it might look
something like the following
(NOTE: these are examples to illustrate the point and are certainly not a
final proposal).
terminology:snomed-ct?language=en-GB
or for a specific version of SNOMED
terminology:snomed-ct(2003)?language=en-GB
For a hierarchy of a terminology it might look something like
terminology:snomed-ct(2003)/hierarchy?rootConcept=28374832
and for a pre-specified query
terminology:snomed-ct(2003)/query?name=AllBacteria
There are also more specific URIs for terminology queries by using subset
and query version identifiers (UIDs) mentioned above.
I believe this work is ongoing and is being proposed through IHTSDO. I
suggest we wait for that work to conclude but I thought I would let you know
that Erik's thinking is certainly the way things are being proposed.
Heath
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-
> bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Erik Sundvall
> Sent: Monday, 1 December 2008 11:20 PM
> To: For openEHR technical discussions
> Subject: Re: text and description
>
> 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
