On 21/02/2011 00:42, Diego Bosc? wrote: > I know it is on ADL specs, but why limit it to an URI? Second approach > could also be used to identify a subset > > I understand the URI need, but I can think more than one occasion > where you have a defined termset and no URI for it
that is correct - URIs were an older way of thinking about how to 'find' the ref set. Now with IHTSDO / SNOMED CT, we can imagine ref sets identified by SNomed code (they are in SNOMED CT). The problem is that the whole industry is not yet converted to SNOMED CT, and as far as I can see today, there is no guarantee that it ever will. We just don't know. So while we could potentially put SNOMED_CT::123456789 to refer to ref set 123456789 in the SCT concept space, what do we put for LOINC, ICDx or local terminologies? What probably does make sense anyway is to relax the spec in ADL 1.5 to allow both forms (and one day, probably we get rid of the URI form). Does that seem reasonable? - thomas * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110221/1fe5db3a/attachment.html>
