Hi Matthew, Great to hear from you. https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/display/lexevs/lexevs worked for me back in 2009 or so, it is apparently still alive. maybe worth taking a look at.
All the best Seref On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Darlison, Matthew <[email protected]> wrote: > 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..? > > > > Yours, > > > > Matthew > > > > > > *From:* openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical- > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Charles McCay > *Sent:* 22 February 2018 15:42 > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists. > openehr.org> > *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 --- > http://www.openinfobutton.org/hl7-infobutton-standard > > all the best > > Charlie > > > Charlie McCay, [email protected] > Ramsey Systems Ltd, 23D Dogpole, Shrewsbury, Shropshire SY1 1ES > tel +44 7808 570172 <+44%207808%20570172> skype: charliemccay > linkedin:charliemccay > > > > On 22 February 2018 at 13:57, Darlison, Matthew <[email protected]> > 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? > > > > Yours, > > > > Matthew > > > > *From:* openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical- > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Diego Boscá > *Sent:* 22 February 2018 13:05 > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists. > openehr.org> > *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" <[email protected]> > 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 resource… > > > > Yours, > > > > Matthew > > > > *From:* openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical- > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *GF > *Sent:* 22 February 2018 12:23 > *To:* Thomas Beale <[email protected]> > *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 <+31%206%2020347088> > [email protected] > > > > Kattensingel 20 > > 2801 CA Gouda > > the Netherlands > > > > On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:03, Darlison, Matthew <[email protected]> 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... > > Yours, > > Matthew > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > 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
