I would add to Eric's point 3 that (based on the content of an IHTSDO webinar) the workflow/process implemented in the IHTSDO workbench involves an explicit manual approval step for every item in the generated "static" refset. I don't know how/if there is any special support for dealing with re-generating the refset based on a new SNOMED release or a modified set of specification queries.
m ---- Dr Michael Lawley Principal Research Scientist The Australia e-Health Research Centre http://aehrc.com/ +61 7 3253 3609; 0432 832 067 ________________________________________ From: openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk [openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Eric Browne [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 6 May 2010 9:20 PM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Cc: For openEHR clinical discussions; Openehr-Technical Subject: Re: IHTSDO meeting - term binding presentation available Hi Sebastian, If I can give my own perspective on this, having been peripherally involved for some time.. 1. Unfortunately, the IHTSDO (www.ihtsdo.org), who is responsible for the ongoing management and development of SNOMED CT, is still a somewhat closed and traditional standards development organisation. It has no publicly accessible wiki of resources ? la openEHR. It does, however, have a substantial community of individuals from member countries and affiliate organisations and several collaborative websites and mailing lists where ideas, contributions, new specifications etc. are documented and evolve. I would guess that the majority of participants are either active in other standards development organisations, or staff/affiliates of member nation health informatics programs such as the UK's NHS Connecting for Health Program, Canada's Infoway, Australia's National E-Health Transition Authority, etc. 2. For many years prior to IHTSDO taking over SNOMED CT from the College of American Pathologists, SNOMED CT embraced a mechanism and format for producing "subsets" of SNOMED CT. About 18 months ago, proposals for a new SNOMED release format and a new Reference Set format (to replace the old subset mechanism) emerged and evolved. These two proposals morphed into a single umbrella specification called Release Format 2, which has now reached Draft for Trial Use status within the IHTSDO. One of the specification documents covers Reference Set formats and is available in part 2 of RF2 at: http://www.ihtsdo.org/publications/draft-for-review-and-trial-use/ . This draft specification includes support for "language refsets", which may be of particular interest to you. Access to the collaborative space where these documents are made available is described at: http://www.ihtsdo.org/about-ihtsdo/collaborative-space/ . 3. To my knowledge there is no formal IHTSDO proposal for a query language to express Refset membership specifications. However, the IHTSDO Terminology Workbench does incorporate quite a sophisticated mechanism for building refsets using an underlying ( and evolving) query-based expression language. Note: these refsets do not necessarily need to be specific to SNOMED. The refset specifications, however, are currently designed to construct static files for distribution alongside the SNOMED core and national extension files, rather than for producing dynamically evaluated termsets for local needs, as might be supported for openEHR templates, say. eric ---- On 2010-05-06, at 5:48 PM, Sebastian Garde wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > do you know if there is a formal way of how RefSets (=the resulting Snomed CT > codes etc.) and the RefSet query (=the query on Snomed CT to get to the > RefSet) are expressed and shared? > Similar to what is described here but based on RefSets: > http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/term/Ocean+Terminology+Query+Language+%28TQL%29 > > I agree that RefSets are a good way forward, but they need to be available, > reusable and sharable, etc. > > Sebastian > > Thomas Beale wrote: >> >> I attended the IHTSDO meeting just finished in Copenhagen. Things look >> pretty good for where SNOMED CT is going generally - the RF2 technical >> infrastructure seems relatively well designed. There is a lot of activity in >> content modeling, the IHTSDO workbench and many other areas relevant to >> openEHR. Converely, I believe openEHR will be very important to make SNOMED >> CT work in many places, since it will be via archetypes, templates and >> associated ref sets that information systems will be able to connect to >> terminology in a disciplined way. I believe that ref sets are the future of >> SNOMED CT (and any terminology for that matter) in use in real systems. >> >> I was asked to present a view from openEHR about 'terminology binding', i.e. >> connecting terminology and information models. My presentation is on this >> page http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/term/Terminology+Binding >> or see the following direct links: >> ? PDF - >> http://www.openehr.org/wiki/download/attachments/5997267/openEHR_term_binding_IHTSDO_april_2010.pdf >> ? PPTX - >> http://www.openehr.org/wiki/download/attachments/5997267/openEHR_term_binding_IHTSDO_april_2010.pptx >> I hope this is useful. I will continue to document IHTSDO-related thoughts >> on the openEHR wiki, and I encourage others to do the same. >> >> - thomas beale >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> >> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
