Hi Michael,
I agree that post-coordination is useful when mapping to SNOMED?CT and it
works well in many cases. However, to be able to create post-coordinated
concepts the pre-coordinated "building blocks" have to already exist in the
terminology, which are not always the case. There are sometimes also harder
to reuse information mapped to post-coordinated concepts than
post-coordinated concepts, because the hierarchies around the
post-coordinated concepts are generally not so tailored for the
post-coordinated concepts as the hierarchies around pre-coordinated concepts
are.
It is also only SNOMED?CT and a few other terminology systems that allow
post-coordination, so for the majority of terminology systems
post-coordination isn't possible to use.
My view is therefore still that creating archetypes and the terminology
bindings in parallel is better than fist create the archetypes and
afterwards add terminology bindings.
Greetings,
Mikael
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of
Michael.Lawley at csiro.au
Sent: den 11 mars 2010 01:46
To: openehr-technical at chime.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Term bindings in archetypes and templates
Hi Mikael,
You may be interested in our mapping tool, Snapper, which is designed to
tackle this problem for mapping to (not from) SNOMED CT. It provides
extensive support for mapping to post-coordinated expressions where
single-concept maps are not possible and can be used to create unofficial
extensions to SNOMED CT.
More details and a short screen-cast are on our website
http://aehrc.com/snapper
Cheers,
michael
--
Dr Michael Lawley
Principal Research Scientist
The Australia e-Health Research Centre http://aehrc.com/
+61 7 3253 3609; 0432 832 067
"Ein Fl?gel und einen Schnabel machen kein Vogel"
On 11/03/10 9:49 AM, "Mikael Nystr?m" <mikael.nystrom at liu.se> wrote:
Thomas Beale wrote:
> On 10/03/2010 22:16, Mikael Nystr?m wrote:
>> I belong to a group that, except for openEHR related research, also do
>> research about terminology systems and terminology systems mapping.
>> During mapping from one terminology system to another terminology
>> system is it quite common to be unable to map properly, because the two
>> terminology systems have divided the domain in different ways. This
>> problem appears even when mapping to SNOMED CT, which have a broad
>> coverage and a concept model allowing a broad set of relationships. My
>> view is that the same problem will appear when finalized archetypes are
>> bound to existing terminology systems.
> it will certainly appear. The question is: for those archetype nodes that
> it is useful to bind to terminology (likely to be 10% or less), how close
> is the match? For example, in labs, it should be nearly spot on. For
> anatomy, it should be pretty close. For diseases, the disease concept in
> an archetype will assume that it is coded in the first place by
> terminology, so the only problem there is mapping problems from ICD to SCT
> etc. I think we need to look at the actual size of the concrete problem,
> not its theoretical worst case.
I agree that we have to wait and see how much problems we will get. That was
also my reason to reply to Sebastian's e-mail which told that there is no
problem to add terminology bindings after the archetypes are finalized.
However, I didn't refer to "theoretical worst case". I referred to actual
problems that have appeared for us during both our research work and in our
national SNOMED CT project in Sweden.
Greetings,
Mikael
_______________________________________________
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
