Hi Pablo, thanks for your reply, you definately need people with
knowledge on SCT. To call it experts, possible, but it is a limited
knowledge area, and if you focus on the expression and grammar part,
even more limited. If someone studies on it for two weeks, full time,
he/she must be able to get most of it.
And when we have an archetype-editor based on SCT, it must be more
easier to use it.
Bert
Op 11-9-2016 om 16:48 schreef pablo pazos:
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]
<mailto:[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>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* openEHR-technical
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of
Mikael Nyström <[email protected] <mailto:[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
<http://www.ihtsdo.org/news-articles/rfp-for-loinc--snomed-ct-cooperation-project>
.
Regards
Mikael
*Från:*openEHR-technical
[mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>]*För *Bert
Verhees
*Skickat:* den 9 september 2016 08:42
*Till:* [email protected]
<mailto:[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
<http://www.ihtsdo.org/about-ihtsdo/partnerships/loinc>
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://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
