I will explain it in another way. acNNNN codes are used as "placeholder constraints", i.e. a kind of link to a query or subset in a terminological systems that defines the possible instance values of a coded attribute.
My question was: Is it needed to be always a link to a subset? Cannot we use acNNNN to define bindings to specific terminological codes explicitly enumerated, without the need of defining a subset in the terminological system in advance? 2014-10-30 20:05 GMT+01:00 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>: > > Hi David, > > well the very direct answer is: ADL 1.4 is ... a bit limited;-) > > your last example section: > > constraint_bindings = < > ["BI98"] = < > items = < > ["ac0001"] = <terminology:BI98?code=XXXX> > ["ac0001"] = <terminology:BI98?code=YYYY> > > > > > > > > > would not even be allowed in ADL 2. Now, we have to ask why something like > the above could exist. Presumably there has to be some distinguishing > feature of the two mappings, otherwise how does tooling and systems know > what to choose. One concept that has been brought up in the past is the > idea of mapping codes and value sets differently for different uses of the > same terminology, e.g. GP v nursing. Maybe something like: > > constraint_bindings = < > ["snomedct"] = < > ["nursing"] = < > ["ac0001"] = <http://snomed.info/id/1111> <http://snomed.info/id/1111> > ["ac0002"] = <http://snomed.info/id/3333> <http://snomed.info/id/3333> > > > ["general practice"] = < > ["ac0001"] = <http://snomed.info/id=/2222> > <http://snomed.info/id=/2222> > ["ac0002"] = <http://snomed.info/id/3333> <http://snomed.info/id/3333> > > > > > > > > The syntax might be different. There are all kinds of questions here. E.g. > maybe you want the binding to snomedct to be mostly the same for all > purposes, but just a bit different for some. See the ac0002 code above - > it's mapped to the same thing in each case. Maybe we want something more > like: > > constraint_bindings = < > ["snomedct"] = < > ["ac0002"] = <http://snomed.info/id/3333> <http://snomed.info/id/3333> > > > ["snomedct/nursing"] = < > ["ac0001"] = <http://snomed.info/id/1111> > <http://snomed.info/id/1111> > > > ["snomedct/general practice"] = < > ["ac0001"] = <http://snomed.info/id=/2222> > <http://snomed.info/id=/2222> > > > > > > It's easy to imagine a lot of other similar ideas. So far I have never > seen a solid statement of requirements on this need. Can you provide some > more background on the need you have? It's not out of the question to get > it into the soon-to-be-finalised ADL2, but we'd need something pretty clear > to go on. > > Secondly, your statement: > Isn't it reasonable to allow defining coded value sets explicitly at the > archetype level (specially in cases where maybe we only have to define two > or three codes)? > > I assume you mean the internal code-set construct i.e. > [local:: > at0001, > at0002] > > which can of course have 1:1 code:concept bindings for each at-code. But > you know that, so I probably don't understand what you are really asking... > > - thomas > > > On 30/10/2014 11:54, David Moner wrote: > > Hello, > > A very direct question: Why it is not possible to define multiple > constraint bindings for the same archetype node and the same terminology in > AOM/ADL 1.4? I know in AOM/ADL 2.0 the management of these constraints > change completely, but the following is the situation (limitation?) in > existing 1.4. > > For a given textual node, it is possible to define multiple term > definitions (atNNNN codes), for example: > > DV_CODED_TEXT matches { > defining_code matches { > [local:: > at0001, > at0002] > } > } > > term_definitions = < > ["en"] = < > items = < > ["at0001"] = < > text = <"XXXXX"> > description = <"*"> > > > ["at0002"] = < > text = <"YYYYY"> > description = <"*"> > > > > > > > > > > > However, it is not possible to define the same using constraint bindings > (acNNNN codes). More precisely, it is only possible to do it if each code > pertains to a different terminology. For example, the following example > would be valid: > > DV_CODED_TEXT matches { > defining_code matches {[ac0001]} > } > > constraint_definitions = < > ["en"] = < > items = < > ["ac0001"] = < > text = <"New constraint"> > description = <"*"> > > > > > > > > > > constraint_bindings = < > ["BI98"] = < > items = < > ["ac0001"] = <terminology:BI98?code=YYYY> > > > > > ["AIR93"] = < > items = < > ["ac0001"] = <terminology:AIR93?code=XXXX> > > > > > > > > > But not the following one, the ADL parser and the openEHR Archetype > Editor do not even accept it: > > DV_CODED_TEXT matches { > defining_code matches {[ac0001]} > } > > constraint_definitions = < > ["en"] = < > items = < > ["ac0001"] = < > text = <"New constraint"> > description = <"*"> > > > > > > > > > > constraint_bindings = < > ["BI98"] = < > items = < > ["ac0001"] = <terminology:BI98?code=XXXX> > ["ac0001"] = <terminology:BI98?code=YYYY> > > > > > > > > > Is it mandatory to use predefined subsets to define a coded value set > with multiple values in a constraint binging? > Isn't it reasonable to allow defining coded value sets explicitly at the > archetype level (specially in cases where maybe we only have to define two > or three codes)? > It would be a simple but very convenient patch to add to AOM/ADL 1.4+ > before 2.0. > > David > > - > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia - 46022 (Espa?a) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141031/3acce401/attachment-0001.html>
