Hi again, I've been snowed under for a while and just now catching up with this...I reckon there was a suggestion that we do not include SNOMED codes within archetypes, or more specifically post-coordinated expressions, if I understand correctly but to define these somewhere else and then include the external URI instead. While this would be a good solution for well-defined expressions, subsets etc. I think if you think about the vast amount of potential expressions with almost endless permutations of terms it quickly becomes too complex and unmanageable. Therefore there will always need for including specific expressions within archetypes and templates.
I've been doing a lot of terminology bindings using various ontologies and terminology lately and I think we need urgently a consistent way to make these bindings and get the tools support it. For example when term bindings (for the purpose of defining real-world meaning of a node) are done at archetype level you end up with local at codes that refer to each binding and then it is possible to link one or more terms from same or different terminology systems. For the purpose of providing a valueset to a DV_CODED_TEXT at archetype level we don't have a very clear way - we keep on saying we'll put a terminology query but it is not really usable or useful. Tooling support is also not satisfactory. But when you do that at template level (e.g. define a valueset for a DV_TEXT by further constraining it to DV_CODED_TEXT or an existing DV_CODED_TEXT) it is just a list of terms, code and terminology system with version/release. It is not clear how we can refer to an external list defined by a terminology query or refset - at least I couldn't figure out. There's quite an inconsistency between archetype vs template defined valuesets within .opt - whereas they should be defined in the same way and share same semantics. I don't know how to fix it - my guess is that this is not a commonly used feature so it was never a high priority for SEC group. I think it is time to bring loose ends together as more and more countries adopt SNOMED and there is clear pressure to do this. FHIR terminology service is quite good and I think we should just start using it. If we need further bells and whistles it can be extended. Cheers, -koray From: openEHR-technical [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Koray Atalag Sent: Tuesday, 2 May 2017 11:47 p.m. To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: [FORGED] RE: SNOMEDCT - correct representation Yup - that's the right URI format. Cheers, -koray From: openEHR-technical [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: Thursday, 27 April 2017 1:01 a.m. To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: SNOMEDCT - correct representation In the new world of URIs representing SNOMED codes, this "SNOMED-CT" value for the terminology_id is understood as an openEHR-local (and maybe more widely agreed) namespace alias for the SNOMED CT namespace whose URI is http://snomed.info/sct (see http://doc.ihtsdo.org/download/doc_UriStandard_Current-en-US_INT_20140527.pdf). Practically speaking this means that if other variants exist, e.g. 'snomed_ct', 'SNOMED_CT' and so on, they can all be defined as aliases for SNOMED CT, in different contexts such as archetype tools, AQL queries and so on. BTW, the ARchetype editor should generate URIs of this form for terminologies (from the ADL2 converted form of the CKM BP archetype): term_bindings = < ["SNOMED-CT"] = < ["id1"] = <http://snomed.info/id/163020007><http://snomed.info/id/163020007> ["id5"] = <http://snomed.info/id/163030003><http://snomed.info/id/163030003> ["id6"] = <http://snomed.info/id/163031004><http://snomed.info/id/163031004> ["id14"] = <http://snomed.info/id/246153002><http://snomed.info/id/246153002> > ["openehr"] = < ["at1055"] = <http://openehr.org/id/125><http://openehr.org/id/125> ["at1056"] = <http://openehr.org/id/497><http://openehr.org/id/497> ["at1057"] = <http://openehr.org/id/146><http://openehr.org/id/146> > > - thomas On 25/04/2017 07:03, Ian McNicoll wrote: SNOMED-CT is the official designator, based on the archetype editor terminology list. On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 at 06:36, Pablo Pazos <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Congratulations about the new adoption! The IHTSDO recommends to use exactly "SNOMED CT" as the *name*, in our specs we are using SNOMED-CT as the name (it should be corrected to the name preferred by the IHTSDO). On an event they explicitly asked to avoid the SNOMED-CT with the hyphen when referencing the standard. As for the term id, I've seen [snomed-ct::35917007 on the specs, or SNOMED-CT on sample archetypes: https://github.com/openEHR/specifications-ITS/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=snomed&type= Tested on the Ocean's archetype editor and they use: constraint_bindings = < ["SNOMED-CT"] = < items = < ["ac0001"] = <terminology:SNOMED-CT/release?subset=cabolabs> > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Bjørn Næss <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Norway just became a SNOMED country. One simple question - what is the correct terminologyId to use for SNOMED-CT. Currently we use 'SNOMEDCT' like below. Is this correct? <value xsi:type="DV_CODED_TEXT"> <value>Høyre øye</value> <defining_code> <terminology_id> <value>SNOMEDCT</value> </terminology_id> <code_string>18944008</code_string> </defining_code> </value> Vennlig hilsen Bjørn Næss Produktansvarlig DIPS ASA Mobil +47 93 43 29 10<tel:+47%2093%2043%2029%2010> _______________________________________________ openEHR-implementers mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org -- Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez Cel:(00598) 99 043 145 Skype: cabolabs [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B27lX-sxkymfdEdPLVI5UTZuZlU&revid=0B27lX-sxkymfcUwzT0N2RUs3bGU2UUovakc4VXBxWFZ6OXNnPQ]<http://cabolabs.com/> http://www.cabolabs.com<http://www.cabolabs.com/> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subscribe to our newsletter<http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj> _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- Ian McNicoll _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- [http://www.openehr.org/files/about/logoweb.png] Thomas Beale Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation<http://www.openehr.org> Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society<http://www.bcs.org/category/6044> Health IT blog<http://wolandscat.net/> | Culture blog<http://wolandsothercat.net/>
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
