Dear Charlie,

That’s interesting, and not something I’d come across – many thanks!

Is anyone aware of an open, freely available terminology service suite that 
could be used to experiment with what should be in a terminology in order to 
make it useful for various purposes..?



From: openEHR-technical [] On 
Behalf Of Charles McCay
Sent: 22 February 2018 15:42
To: For openEHR technical discussions <>
Subject: Re: Creating a terminology

HI Matthew
You may be interested in HL7 InfoButton - which is a standard for linking 
clinical systems to knowledge bases -- it is a fairly simple and open REST 
interface -- allowing you to define the sorts of search parameters that you are 
expecting - and retuning the knowledge in a few possible formats.
Whether this will work for you depends upon how you anticipate your knowledge 
being accessed - and whether the process will be triggered from within the EHR 
or from some other user interaction.

I have not used it but it does not seem too tied to other HL7 standards, and so 
may also be of use and relevance in an OpenEHR context.  At the very least it 
will be an interesting example of folk trying to do something similar to you :)

The following page looks like a good place to start ---
all the best

Charlie McCay,<>
Ramsey Systems Ltd, 23D Dogpole, Shrewsbury, Shropshire SY1 1ES
tel +44 7808 570172  skype: charliemccay   linkedin:charliemccay

On 22 February 2018 at 13:57, Darlison, Matthew 
<<>> wrote:
Dear Diego,

I don’t know precisely yet, but the problem space arises when, for example, a 
procedure is standardised (by a protocol or SOP), and thus has a set of agreed 
“allowed” outputs which one might need to record in the kind of way that would 
fit with mapping to a DV_CODED_TEXT from an archetype. When this goes 
finer-grained than any existing terminology (for example, when the basis is 
something like a locus-specific mutation database) there needs to be a way to 
create pick-lists etc. without embedding the logic inside an archetype.

My current thinking is that the protocol/SOP maps to 1…* archetypes, but the 
knowledge needs not to be embedded there because it has broader uses.

Does that make sense?



From: openEHR-technical 
 On Behalf Of Diego Boscá
Sent: 22 February 2018 13:05
To: For openEHR technical discussions 
Subject: RE: Creating a terminology

Matthew, what is the scope of your terminology? Are the terms intended to 
appear in data instances? If terms are intrinsic to a set of archetypes then 
you could probably define the terms as constraint bindings in each archetype.

El 22 feb. 2018 1:44 p. m., "Darlison, Matthew" 
<<>> escribió:
Dear Gerard,

Many thanks – that’s interesting as an expression of the terminology, but I’m 
guessing that was either generated from a machine-readable expression of the 
terminology, or would need such a machine-readable version to exist before it 
could be instantiated within a terminology server/service? I’m also interested 
to try that out, so that other software might be able to interrogate the 



From: openEHR-technical 
 On Behalf Of GF
Sent: 22 February 2018 12:23
To: Thomas Beale 
Subject: Re: Creating a terminology

Dear Matthew,

In the attachment a candidate terminology as PDF

It is known as SIAMM
Semantic Interpretabily Artefact Modelling method

Gerard   Freriks
+31 620347088<tel:+31%206%2020347088><>

Kattensingel  20
2801 CA Gouda
the Netherlands

On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:03, Darlison, Matthew 
<<>> wrote:

Dear All,

I've been looking for some time for ways of injecting knowledge into the 
ecosystem so that it is available to an EHR, but also to other systems that 
might want to use it.

I currently think I need to create a terminology (or maybe more than one), but 
I've found vanishingly few open tools and little guidance on what I could use 
to do this, and experiment to see if it does what I need.

I'd be grateful for any advice...



openEHR-technical mailing list<>

openEHR-technical mailing list<>

openEHR-technical mailing list

Reply via email to