Erik, I don't see the difference. The same approach can be used with different query parameters and terminology identifiers. We just need to find a way to uniquely identify local terminology ids, some sort of namespacing mechanism such as a terminology source organisation UID should do the trick. This would not be that much different to uniquely identifying templates which is also under development.
Heath > -----Original Message----- > From: e.sundvall at gmail.com [mailto:e.sundvall at gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Erik > Sundvall > Sent: Tuesday, 2 December 2008 7:03 PM > To: For openEHR technical discussions > Cc: Heath Frankel; hugh.grady at oceaninformatics.com > Subject: Re: text and description > > Hi! > > I know that there are suggestions for defining terminology > queries/subset-selections using URIs. We discussed this a bit in a > conference paper that was selected for republication in BMC: > "Integration of tools for binding archetypes to SNOMED CT" freely > available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/8/S1/S7 > > This kind of URI-encoded queries with semantics have come and gone and > seem to be coming again in openEHR discussions. Sometimes the URIs > have contained semantics similar to what you describe below. Sometimes > they have just contained ID's of queries that have their semantics > hidden, sorry I mean stored/maintained, in some query server. See > especially the appendix in the paper above for discussion and > references. > > However, my recent question/suggestion did not have much to do with > those URI-encoded terminology queries. > > Instead, I was asking about two specific use-cases: > 1. directly pointing out single codes/concepts that already have URIs and > 2. a way of creating "local" bindings using URIs as unique identifiers. > > Please re-read the previous post and feel free to ask more if I have > not made the difference clear enough. > > Best regards, > Erik Sundvall > erisu at imt.liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-227579 > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 22:28, Heath Frankel > <heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > >
