And just as a comment, in the ADL 1.4 specs the example shows a URL. Maybe should be better if a URN was shown
2011/2/21 pablo pazos <pazospablo at hotmail.com>: > (just to clarify) I know that constraint bindings URIs are not actual > working URIs that you can get a-la HTTP, I understand that here they are > used as identifiers, that with a mapping somewhere, our system can access > the real terminology source. > > With the centralized service I meant not to get the content of the > terminology, instead get the global and unique terminologies identifiers for > use in archetypes, so for each terminology and subset we will have only one > id (URI/URN). We can have a mapping to an OID too (other global identifier, > less human friendly but works). > > The problems are: > - we need some way to define/specify what is the canonical form of a > URI/URN, we must agree in a terminology of names (of terminologies :D) and > subsets. > ? - Snomed is the same as SNOMED? or ICD10 is the same as ICD 10 or CIE 10 > (CIE = ICD in spanish)? > - we cannot rely of one tool implementation to take a decision that is not > in the specs: other tools can make different decision, so, generated > archetype will be inconsistent. > > > -- > Kind regards, > A/C Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez > LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez > Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos > > > >> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:42:31 +1100 >> Subject: Re: constraint binding error >> From: andrewpatto at gmail.com >> To: openehr-technical at openehr.org >> >> Just to clarify some more, my contention is that you cannot >> look inside a arbitrary URI to pick out values without >> looking at the formal 'scheme' dependent spec. >> >> So in the case of a 'http' URI, we can read the spec and know >> what the bits mean - _for the purposes of fetching data >> from web servers using HTTP_. I can't imagine how that >> is possibly what is intended by putting a URI into an >> archetype - we can't seriously be suggesting that everyone >> who uses the archetype is all going to be descending on >> some poor webserver named in the URL and fetching data >> in some arbitrary format? >> >> So if you want a URI scheme that has identifiable bits >> for snomed queries etc, someone needs to specify a >> >> urn:snomed:xxxx,yyyy,zzzz >> >> spec. If not, all you can do is compare URI's for equality >> and assume there is some external mechanism for saying >> what the URI actually means. >> >> Andrew >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
