Hi Pablo, This makes a lot of sense to me as well. Re ontology section there may be terminology service queries to things like snomed or formal ontologies. So I'd assume what comes back could potentially be considered as an ontology. Also bear in mind there is no agreed separation of what is terminology vs ontology as far as it goes so sticking to ontology is probably more inclusive for now. I think one needs to consider usage rather than composition for correct labelling - so for example a group of snomed terms that form a value set can be considered as terminology on the basis of usage but results of a terminology service returning a hierarchy of terms will look more like an ontology. Anyway I'm sure this is more an academic concern than real ;)
Cheers, -koray ________________________________________ From: openEHR-technical [openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] on behalf of pablo pazos [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 24 January 2014 4:47 a.m. To: openeh technical Subject: RE: radical idea - where term value sets should be defined in archetypes. HI all, I agree with Daniel's idea: having the terminology items physically inside the value set, so the value set itself will be a new terminological construct and we'll have both: terms and sets. This is clearer and simpler than havnig external relationships (is simpler to parse, implement in code and traverse the structure by a program). BTW, I would prefer that "ontology" section would be called "terminology" in future versions of ADL/AOM. IMO this is more correct naming. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com<http://cabolabs.com/es/home><http://twitter.com/ppazos> > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:45:21 +0000 > From: thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com > To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org > Subject: Re: radical idea - where term value sets should be defined in > archetypes. > > On 14/01/2014 10:52, Daniel Karlsson wrote: > > Thomas and All, > > > > [Sent to CIMI-list as well... Sorry for cross-posting] > > > > >From what I can see the > > difference, apart from syntax, from the current AOM is that value sets > > are named objects by themselves. This would actually solve the problem > > of > > implementing the proposed CIMI terminology binding model in archetypes: > > (using openEHR terminology biniding terminology) OBJECT bindings would > > be term bindings of value sets, VALUE SET bindings would be assignment > > of at-codes to value sets. Then it's just figuring out how those kinds > > of bindings are to be used and explained to archetype users... > > > > I see a number of alternative syntaxes for assigning at-codes to value > > sets though, e.g. > > > > ["vs1001"] = < > > text = <"Blood pressure measuring position"> > > description = <"Position of patient at time of measuring blood > > pressure."> > > content = <"at1001"> <"at1002"> ... > > > > > > > or > > > > ["at1001"] = < > > text = <"Standing"> > > description = <"Standing at the time of blood pressure measurement."> > > valueset = <"vs1001"> <"vs1009">... > > > > > > > This would probably enhance readability, as a archetype reader would > > have to look in two places and not three places to determine the > > contents of a value set. > > > > Yep, I'm ok with any of those. One version I originally thought of - > Daniel's first alternative above: > > ["vs1001"] = < > text = <"Blood pressure measuring position"> > description = <"Position of patient at time of measuring blood pressure."> > content = <"at1001", "at1002", "at1003", ...> > > > > > We can put more or less any alternative that works - happy to see what > the discussion here might generate. > > - thomas > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
