Hi Pablo, sorry I was bit slow with thinking through my plans. The way I see it now, there is no change necessary in the reference model to integrate the potential of SCT largely. Even you can keep on using the semantic rich entry types like Observation, etc.
See my post in my blog. http://www.bertverhees.nl/archetypes/needed-run-snomed-ct-expression-constraints-openehr-aql/ If you, however, limit yourself to the Generic entry type, which even gives a better integration while keeping all OpenEhr functinality alive. http://www.bertverhees.nl/archetypes/snomed-ct-expression-constraints-openehr-aql-part-2/ I am interested in what you think about that. Best regards Bert Verhees Op 10 sep. 2016 05:03 schreef "pablo pazos" <[email protected]>: > Hi all, > > > Regarding the genericity of the openEHR IM, from the implementation point > of view we have at least 3 models: > > > + the implementation information model > > + the persistence information model > > + and the reference / canonic information model (the openEHR IM) > > > Others might have more than these 3 models on their openEHR > implementations. > > > I think some simplifications can still be done to the openEHR IM without > losing semantics, like removing ITEM_STRUCTURE and using just > CLUSTER/ELEMENT (we have a discussion about this on the wiki started some > years ago). > > > IMO we should not try to make the reference model simpler just in sake of > simplifying the implementation, since the other 2 models are for that. In > my systems I have different implementation models that are over simplified > openEHR IM implementations, and also very specific / optimized / generic > persistence information models compatible with the openEHR IM. And I think > the implementation / persistence models are the ones we can simplify and > adjust to our needs, but not the reference model, since it's role is that: > be the reference for all implementations. > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti??rrez > http://cabolabs.com <http://cabolabs.com/es/home> > <http://twitter.com/ppazos> > ------------------------------ > *From:* openEHR-technical <[email protected]> > on behalf of Mikael Nyström <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, September 9, 2016 4:15:53 AM > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions > *Subject:* SV: SV: More generic reference model > > > Hi, > > > > A related activity that might be useful to know is the “RFP for LOINC - > SNOMED CT Cooperation Project”. http://www.ihtsdo.org/news- > articles/rfp-for-loinc--snomed-ct-cooperation-project . > > > > Regards > > Mikael > > > > *Från:* openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical- > [email protected]] *För *Bert Verhees > *Skickat:* den 9 september 2016 08:42 > *Till:* [email protected] > *Ämne:* Re: SV: More generic reference model > > > > Op 9-9-2016 om 8:37 schreef Bjørn Næss: > > But in addition to that we need to map terms from different other > terminologies like SNOMED-CT, LOINC and also Disease Ontologies. > > There is a mapping effort by IHTSDO en Regenstrief, they started that a > few years ago, and it will be finished, next year, I think. > > http://www.ihtsdo.org/about-ihtsdo/partnerships/loinc > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- > technical_lists.openehr.org >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
