Hi Thomas, According to Support_IM 5.3.2
"Valid identifiers that can be used for this attribute for terminologies include but are not limited to the following: ? "openehr" ? "centc251" ? an identifier value from the first column of the US National Library or Medicine (NLM) UMLS terminology identifiers table below, in either of two forms: - as is, e.g. "ICD10AM_2000", "ICPC93"; - with any trailing section starting with an underscore removed, e.g. "ICD10AM"." So, as far as I can see it should be possible to use a local identifier, although not supported by the editors at present, the issue being how to namespace the terminology uniquely. I could not see anything in other documentation For Olof's project I am proposing to use e.g. "se.chalmers.MUKOS::mukos-reaktion" In real use, and if we have designed the archetypes optimally, most of these term-bindings should be at template-level rather than archetypes. Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian at mcmi.co.uk Clinical Analyst - Ocean Informatics ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Member of BCS Primary Health Care Specialist Group ? www.phcsg.org 2008/12/1 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > Koray Atalag wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > I had a similar issue lately and just came up with an idea for > > local/custom terminology bindings - i.e. linking at codes to external > > terminologies not formally defined in UMLS or elsewhere. > > > > My problem was to bind terms to latest version of SNOMED through which > > I access from UMLS. In the Ocean Archetype Editor when you want to add > > a new terminology, a list is presented (possibly taken from UMLS > > knowledge sources) which contains only SNOMED CT 2002 version. So I > > added SNOMED_CT manually via text editor: > > > > ontology > > terminologies_available = <"MST2", "UMLS", "SNOMED_CT"> > > > > NOTE: editor does not like spaces in term name! > > Hi Koray, > > that's because it is illegal in the openEHR specification - > TERMINOLOGY_ID type in the Identification packge in the Support IM. Also > note that the only names that can be used are (crrently) the UMLS names > - see the spec. Also the version/revision should be indicated in () > after, e.g. > > SNOMED_CT(2008v2)::123456 > > or however they are identifying it. We need to determine how UMLS is > naming all of these variants / releases. > > > > > 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. > > you can already do this - > > umls(2008AA)::123456 etc > > > - thomas beale > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20081202/ce7fefb1/attachment.html>
