Hi,
Yes, it is correct that expressions include single code binding. Those kinds of
bindings are just the simplest variants of expressions. :-)
I think that in a few years’ time nearly all implementations of SNOMED CT not
only implement the international version, but also one are a few international,
national or local extensions, so this use case is probably the normal use case
and not the exceptional use case.
Regards
Mikael
(Among other things SNOMED CT Implementation
Advisor)
Från: openEHR-clinical [mailto:[email protected]] För
Pablo Pazos
Skickat: den 12 mars 2018 01:39
Till: For openEHR clinical discussions <[email protected]>
Kopia: Openehr-Technical <[email protected]>
Ämne: Re: Terminology bindings ... again
Now that I have more experience with SNOMED expressions, I like the idea of
doing the binding with an expression, also I think an expression includes the
single code binding, if that is correct there is no need of defining a
different notation for single code binding, just use a simple expression formed
by one specific concept code. Also the expression being something processable
and very versatile, we can express complex concepts with a few codes, which
will help on adding knowledge to the archetype and serve to a better and
simpler CDS.
About the metadata, there should be expressed against which SNOMED release this
expression was created. We can't be sure only with min version. I should be
responsibility of the user to check if the expression works on a different
version/release of SNOMED. Another metadata is if the version is a local
extension, some countries have their own extensions.
I don't know if we need to support other terminologies (technically) and if
doing that is useful (strategically). Terminology services can do SNOMED to
ICD, and ICD is not clinical relevant. LOINC is useful, but there is a
SNOMED-LOINC collaboration, so we might expect an official mapping in the
future (https://loinc.org/collaboration/snomed-international/). IMO we should
focus on SNOMED.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Thomas Beale
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Recently we discussed terminology bindings. We probably still have not got them
right, but we don't have a model of what we think they should be. I posted a
quick idea of a possible more structured version:
term_bindings = <
["snomed_ct"] = <
["/data[id3]/events[id4]/data[id2]/items[id26]"] = (SIMPLE_BINDING)
<
target = <http://snomedct.info/id/169895004> -- Apgar score at 1
minute
notes = <"some notes">
min_version = <"2017-02-01">
etc = <"etc">
>
["id26"] = (CONSTRAINT_BINDING) <
target = <"71388002 |Procedure| : 405815000 |Procedure device|
= 122456005 |Laser device| , 260686004 |Method| = 129304002 |Excision -
action| ,405813007 |Procedure site - direct| = 1549700l6 |Ovarian structure|">
min_version = <"2017-04-01">
notes = <"some notes">
etc = <"etc">
>
>
>
I noted that the right hand side of a binding can be a few different things,
each of which would be accompanied by various meta-data, including:
* a single concept code
* a single code or other id referring to an external value set in an
external terminology (in SNOMED it is a SNOMED code; for e.g. ICD10, there is
no standard that I know of)
* a composition expression that refers to a more refined concept
* possible a constraint expression that locally determines a value set
intensionally, to be resolved by application to the Terminology service.
I'd rather avoid the last, because of the brittleness of intensional ref-set
query syntax expressions. In any case, we need a better idea of what meta-data
are needed. E.g.:
* something to do with (min) version of terminology required for the
reference to be valid
* something to do with purpose?
* other notes - a tagged list of basic types?
I would like to get a better idea of the requirements.
- thomas
--
Thomas Beale
Principal, Ars Semantica<http://www.arssemantica.com>
Consultant, ABD Team, Intermountain
Healthcare<https://intermountainhealthcare.org/>
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-clinical mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
--
Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
+598 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/>
https://cloudehrserver.com<https://cloudehrserver.com/>
Subscribe to our newsletter<http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj>
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
