Diego, I think TS accessibility is a different problem and more related to design and implementation. In a national project with a national TS the system is designed to allow those accesses as a requirement. And there are two cases: the TS to be provided by the government or the government giving the contents to the software providers to implement their TS but with the same data like SCT and mappings to ICD, GRD, etc. On both cases access is a basic requirement.
The problem you described is when access to a big public service is needed by an unknown client. The national or local TS are not public, your system needs to be registered as a client. That is at least the approach in my country Uruguay. Th email gov also provides copies of SCT to software providers after signing a contract that is free. 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
