Term bindings in archetypes and templates
Hi Rong (All), (I hope that this is the right mailing list) I am part of an Irish project called EHRland which is looking at two-level models for e-health and trying to understand the openEHR architecture as well. I myself am looking at correspondences between archetype nodes and clinical terms. However I encountered some problems when parsing the ADL files which I took from the openEHR svn repository using the Java ADL parser. The errors messages indicate that they are caused by empty purpose and original author properties. Sometimes the parser also complains about the 'any' constraint on a single attribute and the parsing is interrupted. In any case, I have a few related questions: 1) Can you provide guidance for working around these errors? NOTE: I assume that you have discontinued the development of those ADL files in the http://www.openehr.org/svn/knowledge/archetypes/ repository and now only use the CKM. I would nevertheless like to use this older set of archetypes, as it contains more archetypes with term bindings than the current CKM set. 2) Another question is in relation to templates. If a significant number of term bindings happen at the template rather than Archetype level, are term bindings in Archetypes optional and open to further constraint even after an archetype is released in CKM? 3) Does anyone have a set of developed templates derived from available archetypes (in any format) with bindings in them? I would like to use them to supplement bindings from archetypes. 4) In your experience, where are bindings generally positioned in an archetype or template? Is this ONLY decided by terminologists or will there also be style guide / principles to (for instance) constrain the possible position of bindings? regards, Sheng This message has been scanned for content and viruses by the DIT Information Services E-Mail Scanning Service, and is believed to be clean. http://www.dit.ie
Term bindings in archetypes and templates
Hi Sheng, Your project sounds very interesting! My attempt to answer your first two questions is below. Cheers Sebastian Sheng,Yu wrote: Hi Rong (All), (I hope that this is the right mailing list) I am part of an Irish project called EHRland which is looking at two-level models for e-health and trying to understand the openEHR architecture as well. I myself am looking at correspondences between archetype nodes and clinical terms. However I encountered some problems when parsing the ADL files which I took from the openEHR svn repository using the Java ADL parser. The errors messages indicate that they are caused by empty purpose and original author properties. Sometimes the parser also complains about the 'any' constraint on a single attribute and the parsing is interrupted. In any case, I have a few related questions: 1) Can you provide guidance for working around these errors? NOTE: I assume that you have discontinued the development of those ADL files in the http://www.openehr.org/svn/knowledge/archetypes/ repository and now only use the CKM. I would nevertheless like to use this older set of archetypes, as it contains more archetypes with term bindings than the current CKM set. To allow an empty purpose there is an option in the Java Parser (one of the parameters when constructing the Parser). If set to true, it should parse these archetypes ok. (Note that however according to the openEHR specs, the purpose must be present and non empty) For a missing original_author, there is no such flag, so you will need to fix the archetypes and and add an author (e.g. using the Archetype Editor). (Or adapt the Parser to be more lenient) You need to be more specific what your problem is with the any constraint. There will probably be other problems with the archetypes - for example in the way languages are expressed. A current version of the .NET/Ocean Archetype Editor will probably update this automatically if you load the archetype and save it again. I would recommend to use CKM archetypes whereever possible and add bindings to them if necessary. The svn archetypes are really outdated, both content-wise and technically. I should add that we are preparing for terminology binding reviews within CKM for the next release, so expect that we will add more and more bindings at least to the published archetypes in CKM 2) Another question is in relation to templates. If a significant number of term bindings happen at the template rather than Archetype level, are term bindings in Archetypes optional and open to further constraint even after an archetype is released in CKM? Term bindings can certainly added after the content of an archetype is published in CKM - no problem and exactly what we intend to do. Where possible, simple term bindings should be at archetype level, but terminology subsets you would probably rather expect on template level. Ian or Thomas may want to add (or contradict me ;-) ) Cheers Sebastian 3) Does anyone have a set of developed templates derived from available archetypes (in any format) with bindings in them? I would like to use them to supplement bindings from archetypes. 4) In your experience, where are bindings generally positioned in an archetype or template? Is this ONLY decided by terminologists or will there also be style guide / principles to (for instance) constrain the possible position of bindings? regards, Sheng This message has been scanned for content and viruses by the DIT Information Services E-Mail Scanning Service, and is believed to be clean. http://www.dit.ie ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- Ocean Informatics Dr Sebastian Garde Senior Developer Ocean Informatics /Dr. sc. hum., Dipl.-Inform. Med, FACHI/ Skype: gardeseb -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100310/6233faa5/attachment.html -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: oceanlogo.png Type: image/png Size: 5677 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100310/6233faa5/attachment.png
Term bindings in archetypes and templates
Sebastian Garde wrote: Hi, 2) Another question is in relation to templates. If a significant number of term bindings happen at the template rather than Archetype level, are term bindings in Archetypes optional and open to further constraint even after an archetype is released in CKM? Term bindings can certainly added after the content of an archetype is published in CKM - no problem and exactly what we intend to do. Where possible, simple term bindings should be at archetype level, but terminology subsets you would probably rather expect on template level. Ian or Thomas may want to add (or contradict me ;-) ) I should probably add that there exist different views in the openEHR community about how easy it is to add terminology bindings to already modelled archetypes. I belong to a group that, except for openEHR related research, also do research about terminology systems and terminology systems mapping. During mapping from one terminology system to another terminology system is it quite common to be unable to map properly, because the two terminology systems have divided the domain in different ways. This problem appears even when mapping to SNOMED?CT, which have a broad coverage and a concept model allowing a broad set of relationships. My view is that the same problem will appear when finalized archetypes are bound to existing terminology systems. Greetings, Mikael
Term bindings in archetypes and templates
On 10/03/2010 22:16, Mikael Nystr?m wrote: I belong to a group that, except for openEHR related research, also do research about terminology systems and terminology systems mapping. During mapping from one terminology system to another terminology system is it quite common to be unable to map properly, because the two terminology systems have divided the domain in different ways. This problem appears even when mapping to SNOMED CT, which have a broad coverage and a concept model allowing a broad set of relationships. My view is that the same problem will appear when finalized archetypes are bound to existing terminology systems. it will certainly appear. The question is: for those archetype nodes that it is useful to bind to terminology (likely to be 10% or less), how close is the match? For example, in labs, it should be nearly spot on. For anatomy, it should be pretty close. For diseases, the disease concept in an archetype will assume that it is coded in the first place by terminology, so the only problem there is mapping problems from ICD to SCT etc. I think we need to look at the actual size of the concrete problem, not its theoretical worst case. - thomas * * -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100310/85cf7b11/attachment.html
