On 21/02/2018 13:00, Bert Verhees wrote:
On 20-02-18 20:09, Thomas Beale wrote:
The terminology service also has dependencies to rm data types, only
because of codephrase. Wouldn't it be possible to avoid that?
Yes, there is a new class TERMINOLOGY_CODE that is used in BASE
instead of CODE_PHRASE; eventually, the RM should just use that. If
you found any use of CODE_PHRASE in BASE, please let us know.
This is of course a good thing.
But now the question, how do I know which definition to use.
I always looked at this URL:
http://www.openehr.org/programs/specification/workingbaseline
There I found "Support", which brings me to:
http://www.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/docs/support/support.html
In that, there is CODE_PHRASE still used in TERMINOLOGY_ACCESS.
yes - we are still working on this - to find the cleanest way to
separate it out without breaking current code.
Now I read that there is a new class in BASE, I found the link:
http://www.openehr.org/releases/BASE/latest/docs/index
And I found Terminology_Code:
http://www.openehr.org/releases/BASE/latest/docs/base_types/base_types.html#_terminology_code_class
Which is a real improvement, exactly what I was hoping for, it did not
only remove the CODE_PHRASE from datatypes, but also TERMINOLOGY_ID
class from SUPPORT
It has a property/field which is named terminology_id and is of type
string
Is this what is going to be the new standard?
And when will this be like that?
Well it will be the new standard for BASE classes very soon. Over time,
we will start either replacing CODE_PHRASE in the upper models with
TERMINOLOGY_CODE, or possibly adding some sort of mapping / conversion
logic. But we'll only do that based on input from implementers - we need
to find a way to update the models without breaking existing systems.
When looking further, I also see that there is still a TERMINOLOGY_ID
class in that document which is the old support terminology which is
derived from OBJECT_ID
http://www.openehr.org/releases/BASE/latest/docs/base_types/base_types.html#_terminology_id_class
Is this confusing, or am I missing something stupid? Am I the only
person asking this kind of questions? If yes, where do others get
their information from?
Please help me, because, I think, this is very important.
you should consider the classes you see in BASE today as being what will
be issued, unless anyone finds a problem with them. In the near future,
we will continue the cleanup around terminology. One reason we have not
cleaned it up yet is because noone in industry agrees on what standard
or tools to use. Noone faithfully implements CTS2 for example, except a
non-maintained server from Mayo (LexGrid from memory). IHTSDO did
something different, and FHIR did something else. All have good and bad
points, but there has been no clear specification.
I am inclined to think that the specification of the future is a kind of
stripped down CTS2 that gets rid of XML/XSD, and can be used with
multiple serialisation formats, and cleaner models, but semantically,
more or less the same. But we have to be practical too. Maybe the FHIR
terminology service will evolve in the most appropriate way; they
already have the same URI representation of terms as our BASE classes
now have.
All input on this welcome, as usual.
- thomas
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
