I understand the point, and it makes perfect sense talking about a general solution.
But it also depends on the scope. Consider a nationwide project where terminologies are defined and subsets / expressions can be defined in a controlled way. In this context my approach would not be a problem. Even if local codes are defined, those can be post coordinated / harmonized, and only those codes can be part of queries (I can imagine such rule in a real situation, maybe as part of a querying guideline). Without considering context and scope, this is a thought problem to solve in a general way, but with each conversation we get closer to a solution, this is a great exercise. Sent from my LG Mobile ------ Original message------ From: Diego Boscá Date: Sun, Sep 11, 2016 15:33 To: For openEHR technical discussions; Subject:Re: SV: More generic reference model I mean, I can see that there can be valid queries to known terminologyservices, I'm not against that. In practical terms however, you can'talways expect to have all the access that you want to a given externalservice. e.g. I was banned from W3C once for launching atransformation (more like 10k...) that depended on a online schema. Ican imagine that could even be worse for terminology services(downtimes and maintenance aside).That's why I said standard (explicit?) expression definitions shouldbe preferred when available2016-09-11 20<tel:2016-09-11%2020>:21 GMT+02:00 Thomas Beale :> 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]<mailto:%[email protected]>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org_______________________________________________openEHR-technical mailing [email protected]<mailto:%[email protected]>p://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org<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
