I mean, I can see that there can be valid queries to known terminology services, I'm not against that. In practical terms however, you can't always expect to have all the access that you want to a given external service. e.g. I was banned from W3C once for launching a transformation (more like 10k...) that depended on a online schema. I can imagine that could even be worse for terminology services (downtimes and maintenance aside).
That's why I said standard (explicit?) expression definitions should be preferred when available 2016-09-11 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thomas Beale <[email protected]>: > Not an unreasonable point of view, but it sort of implies that there are / > will be no well-known / reliable terminology value sets out there - only > specific value sets inside specific terminology services. > > > On 11/09/2016 19:10, Diego Boscá wrote: >> >> 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 >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
