FHIR terminology servers can (and mostly do) handle all of those terminologies, though I don't know if anyone has handled ICF in practice.
And expansions can preserve is-a relationships if you want, though... life is complicated and the answer is not automatically 'yes' Grahame On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Thomas Beale <[email protected]> wrote: > > we also still need a standard approach for non-SNOMED CT terminologies, > such as ICDx, ICPC, ICF, LOINC and a hundred others... does anyone know of > progress on this issue? > > - thomas > > On 12/09/2016 07:32, Diego Boscá wrote: > >> sure thing, that's why we need standard expressions >> >> 2016-09-12 8:27 GMT+02:00 Bert Verhees <[email protected]>: >> >>> Op 11-9-2016 om 20:32 schreef Diego Boscá: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_ > lists.openehr.org > -- ----- http://www.healthintersections.com.au / [email protected] / +61 411 867 065
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
