I'm not a real fan of having just codes instead of expressions. Expressions are far more readable and may help in the understanding of the archetype. Just a single code representing the subset won't be as clear.
El 11/9/2016 16:49, "pablo pazos" <[email protected]> escribió: > Hi Bert, > > > I was thinking about integrating SCT with path-based queries (I'm not in > AQL yet), but maintaining the complexity of the SCT relationships and > expressions on the terminology service (TS) side, so on queries there are > just simple codes (specific concept ids, subsets or expressions identified > just by one code). Then when evaluating a query, with the TS we can get all > the terms and concept ids that match all the is_a relationships or subsets > of expressions. I talked with several TS providers and hopefully we can > build an integration next year to create and evaluate queries with SCT. > > > What I'm saying is that I prefer to delegate the complexity of SCT to the > TS and create simpler queries in AQL or path-based queries, but your idea > is interesting. One problem though is that query creators need to be > experts in SCT. > > > What do you think? > > > Sent from my LG Mobile > > ------ Original message------ > > *From: *Bert Verhees > > *Date: *Sat, Sep 10, 2016 13:14 > > *To: *For openEHR technical discussions; > > *Subject:*Re: SV: More generic reference model > > 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-boun >> [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 >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
