Thanks Michael, Can I ask if the workflow/process elements of the Workbench are regarded as separate from the Refset 2 specifications, or within other offical IHTSDO specs? Or is this just intended as a local feature of the workbench?
Although the Refset2 sepcifications define a greate deal of 'metadata', as far as I can tell , other than Refset name, this is almost wholly technical in nature and clinical metadata elements e.g use, misuse, purpose, authoring details are not defined - is this correct? Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com ian at mcmi.co.uk Clinical Analyst Ocean Informatics openEHR Archetype Editorial Group Member BCS Primary Health Care SG Group www.phcsg.org / BCS Health Scotland On 6 May 2010 13:22, <Michael.Lawley at csiro.au> wrote: > > 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 [ > eric.browne at montagesystems.com.au] > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20100506/a9aee954/attachment.html>
