The problem I see with depending on a given terminology service is that the code you are defining may or may not be known by the terminology service. This could be ok for templates, but not for archetypes. In my opinion generic archetypes should be based on known syntaxes rather than in specific queries to terminology services whenever is possible
2016-09-11 20:00 GMT+02:00 Thomas Beale <[email protected]>: > > > On 11/09/2016 18:44, pablo pazos wrote: > > IMHO the clearness of the query should not depend on the AQL code, but the > metadata associated with the query, like the ADL header and ontology, the > AQL would be the "definition" of the query. To share queries between systems > the AQL is not enough. We need a declaration of intent, purpose, use, > misuse, etc and description of the query in natural language. > > > exactly right - 'query libraries' and 'query sets', with all that > meta-description. I thought we would be closer to that today than we are to > be honest. In any case, it's key for creating proper query sets which are > what we need to make CDS modules. > > > Also, to manage queries we need something like the CKM and an editor. Good > AQL should not rely only on clearness and readability, but on specifying > exactly what results we need. > > > I think both options are valid: SCT expressions and just codes in AQL, but > since I'm not an expert in SCT, I prefer someone else that knows SCT defines > the expressions and relationships in the terminology server so I can create > queries just using codes. > > > Sent from my LG Mobile > > ------ Original message------ > > From: Diego Boscá > > Date: Sun, Sep 11, 2016 11:57 > > To: For openEHR technical discussions; > > Subject:Re: SV: More generic reference model > > 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. > > > > what would you do when you want to query against a well-known ref-set that > is already defined and living in a terminology server? Try to recreate the > definition to put in the query? I'm not sure this is a great idea, but on > the other hand you might say: how can you trust the ref set definition to > always be associated with that code? Or even: how do we know the query > author really understands the ref-set? > > I don't think we have a proper theory on the query/terminology interface > with respect to such issues... > > - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
