Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

[Grahame Grieve]

HL7 allows you to do that - and we would like you to do that

Grahame


On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 9:16 AM Heath Frankel <
heath.fran...@oceanhealthsystems.com> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> I agree with Grahame, in over 20 years of implementing real systems, I
> don’t think I recall having seen one value-set that hasn’t been extended at
> some point when locally implemented. Even HL7 defined tables in V2 that
> were supposed to not be extended have been extended.
>
>
>
> There is a big difference between best-practice and reality and we don’t
> want to be putting any more barriers to adoption.
>
>
>
> To be honest, I am not sure that using required at an archetype level
> would be wise, it may be something that can be used at a template level.
>
>
>
> You could argue that preferred covers extensible and I agree that example
> may not be useful in models, but has proven to be useful as a guide for
> FHIR readers.
>
>
>
> Therefore, I think we still have Boolean option, either required or
> preferred/extensible/example.
>
>
>
> Having said that, using a Boolean doesn’t allow for us to support a valid
> use case in the future and I see some value in aligning with the FHIR
> options (if HL7 allow us to do that) even if we only support a subset.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Heath
>
>
>
> *From:* openEHR-technical  *On
> Behalf Of *Grahame Grieve
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 16 April 2019 7:03 AM
> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <
> openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
> *Subject:* Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?
>
>
>
> hi Tom
>
>
>
> We did not define extensible bindings because we like it. Using it creates
> many issues and it's problematic. We defined it because it's a very real
> world requirement, in spite of it's apparent 'unreliability'.
>
>
>
> The use cases arises naturally when
>
> - the approval cycle of changes to the value set is slower than
> operational requirements
>
> - the value set is large, and a community can only get partial agreement
> in the space. This is actually pretty common - typically, clinical code
> sets may need to contain 5000-5 concepts, but most of that is a very
> lng tail, and 95%+ of the use comes from 200-400 common codes. There's
> plenty of clinical communities investing time in requiring common agreed
> codes with fixed granularity for the head of the distribution.
>
>
>
> Neither of these things are an issue if openEHR is just targeting single
> application functionality. But as soon as the community that maintains the
> value set is wider than the users of a single system, then extensible
> bindings are inevitable.
>
>
>
> You can consider it bad... but that doesn't make it go away. Nor does it
> reduce the value of the agreements that do exist.
>
>
>
> Grahame
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 1:27 AM Thomas Beale 
> wrote:
>
> Last week, we had a workshop on ADL2 in Germany, to try to sort out a few
> issues on the way to making ADL2 mainstream in openEHR implementations. See
> here for the wiki page
> 
> .
>
> One of the issues discussed was on what basis terminology code constraints
> (value sets, generally) in archetypes (or templates) could be considered
> optional, recommended etc (discussion page here
> ).
> Some here will recognise this question as roughly the one that FHIR's
> 'binding strengths' 
> tries to solve. I can understand two of the settings:
>
>- *required*: thou shalt use one of these here codes
>- *preferred*: we recommend these codes but you can use what you like
>
> I don't know how useful it is to put 'example' value sets in a content
> model, since there might be many possible examples, differing across the
> world. If there is an obvious example that makes sense for the scope /
> geography of application of the archetype, e.g. some SNOMED or LOINC
> subset, then this seems to me to be a case of 'preferred'.
>
> But my main issue is with 'extensible'. In FHIR, this means: you should
> use one of these codes if it applies to your concept, but otherwise you can
> use something else. In my view, in reality, this is the same as
> 'preferred'. It's worth considering what it would mean to mandate codes
> that are supplied in a value-set, but then to say, for other meanings not
> covered, use something else. This means that the value-set is considered
> not to be complete, i.e. to exhaustively cover the concept space. Supplying
> half-built value-sets seems like a very unreliable thing to be doing in
> shared clinical models. Is the value set 90% complete? Or only 10%? The
> whole idea of specifying partial value sets in clinical models just seems
> bad to me.
>
> If we assume that value sets are always well-designed, and exhaustive,
> then the only real 'binding strengths' are: required | 

RE: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

[Heath Frankel]

Hi Tom,
I agree with Grahame, in over 20 years of implementing real systems, I don’t 
think I recall having seen one value-set that hasn’t been extended at some 
point when locally implemented. Even HL7 defined tables in V2 that were 
supposed to not be extended have been extended.

There is a big difference between best-practice and reality and we don’t want 
to be putting any more barriers to adoption.

To be honest, I am not sure that using required at an archetype level would be 
wise, it may be something that can be used at a template level.

You could argue that preferred covers extensible and I agree that example may 
not be useful in models, but has proven to be useful as a guide for FHIR 
readers.

Therefore, I think we still have Boolean option, either required or 
preferred/extensible/example.

Having said that, using a Boolean doesn’t allow for us to support a valid use 
case in the future and I see some value in aligning with the FHIR options (if 
HL7 allow us to do that) even if we only support a subset.

Regards

Heath

From: openEHR-technical  On Behalf 
Of Grahame Grieve
Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2019 7:03 AM
To: For openEHR technical discussions 
Subject: Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

hi Tom

We did not define extensible bindings because we like it. Using it creates many 
issues and it's problematic. We defined it because it's a very real world 
requirement, in spite of it's apparent 'unreliability'.

The use cases arises naturally when
- the approval cycle of changes to the value set is slower than operational 
requirements
- the value set is large, and a community can only get partial agreement in the 
space. This is actually pretty common - typically, clinical code sets may need 
to contain 5000-5 concepts, but most of that is a very lng tail, and 
95%+ of the use comes from 200-400 common codes. There's plenty of clinical 
communities investing time in requiring common agreed codes with fixed 
granularity for the head of the distribution.

Neither of these things are an issue if openEHR is just targeting single 
application functionality. But as soon as the community that maintains the 
value set is wider than the users of a single system, then extensible bindings 
are inevitable.

You can consider it bad... but that doesn't make it go away. Nor does it reduce 
the value of the agreements that do exist.

Grahame


On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 1:27 AM Thomas Beale 
mailto:thomas.be...@openehr.org>> wrote:

Last week, we had a workshop on ADL2 in Germany, to try to sort out a few 
issues on the way to making ADL2 mainstream in openEHR implementations. See 
here for the wiki 
page.

One of the issues discussed was on what basis terminology code constraints 
(value sets, generally) in archetypes (or templates) could be considered 
optional, recommended etc (discussion page 
here).
 Some here will recognise this question as roughly the one that FHIR's 'binding 
strengths' tries to solve. 
I can understand two of the settings:

  *   required: thou shalt use one of these here codes
  *   preferred: we recommend these codes but you can use what you like

I don't know how useful it is to put 'example' value sets in a content model, 
since there might be many possible examples, differing across the world. If 
there is an obvious example that makes sense for the scope / geography of 
application of the archetype, e.g. some SNOMED or LOINC subset, then this seems 
to me to be a case of 'preferred'.

But my main issue is with 'extensible'. In FHIR, this means: you should use one 
of these codes if it applies to your concept, but otherwise you can use 
something else. In my view, in reality, this is the same as 'preferred'. It's 
worth considering what it would mean to mandate codes that are supplied in a 
value-set, but then to say, for other meanings not covered, use something else. 
This means that the value-set is considered not to be complete, i.e. to 
exhaustively cover the concept space. Supplying half-built value-sets seems 
like a very unreliable thing to be doing in shared clinical models. Is the 
value set 90% complete? Or only 10%? The whole idea of specifying partial value 
sets in clinical models just seems bad to me.

If we assume that value sets are always well-designed, and exhaustive, then the 
only real 'binding strengths' are: required | optional.

I have proposed that this be modelled as:

  *   required: Boolean
  *   recommendation: enum ( preferred | example )

If we get rid of the example idea (which I think is just noise) then we just 
need 'required'. If required is false, and there is a value set specified, 
clearly it is 'preferred' or recommended in some sense. If there is no value 
set, it's truly open.

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

[Grahame Grieve]

hi Tom

We did not define extensible bindings because we like it. Using it creates
many issues and it's problematic. We defined it because it's a very real
world requirement, in spite of it's apparent 'unreliability'.

The use cases arises naturally when
- the approval cycle of changes to the value set is slower than operational
requirements
- the value set is large, and a community can only get partial agreement in
the space. This is actually pretty common - typically, clinical code sets
may need to contain 5000-5 concepts, but most of that is a very lng
tail, and 95%+ of the use comes from 200-400 common codes. There's plenty
of clinical communities investing time in requiring common agreed codes
with fixed granularity for the head of the distribution.

Neither of these things are an issue if openEHR is just targeting single
application functionality. But as soon as the community that maintains the
value set is wider than the users of a single system, then extensible
bindings are inevitable.

You can consider it bad... but that doesn't make it go away. Nor does it
reduce the value of the agreements that do exist.

Grahame


On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 1:27 AM Thomas Beale 
wrote:

> Last week, we had a workshop on ADL2 in Germany, to try to sort out a few
> issues on the way to making ADL2 mainstream in openEHR implementations. See
> here for the wiki page
> 
> .
>
> One of the issues discussed was on what basis terminology code constraints
> (value sets, generally) in archetypes (or templates) could be considered
> optional, recommended etc (discussion page here
> ).
> Some here will recognise this question as roughly the one that FHIR's
> 'binding strengths' 
> tries to solve. I can understand two of the settings:
>
>- *required*: thou shalt use one of these here codes
>- *preferred*: we recommend these codes but you can use what you like
>
> I don't know how useful it is to put 'example' value sets in a content
> model, since there might be many possible examples, differing across the
> world. If there is an obvious example that makes sense for the scope /
> geography of application of the archetype, e.g. some SNOMED or LOINC
> subset, then this seems to me to be a case of 'preferred'.
>
> But my main issue is with 'extensible'. In FHIR, this means: you should
> use one of these codes if it applies to your concept, but otherwise you can
> use something else. In my view, in reality, this is the same as
> 'preferred'. It's worth considering what it would mean to mandate codes
> that are supplied in a value-set, but then to say, for other meanings not
> covered, use something else. This means that the value-set is considered
> not to be complete, i.e. to exhaustively cover the concept space. Supplying
> half-built value-sets seems like a very unreliable thing to be doing in
> shared clinical models. Is the value set 90% complete? Or only 10%? The
> whole idea of specifying partial value sets in clinical models just seems
> bad to me.
>
> If we assume that value sets are always well-designed, and exhaustive,
> then the only real 'binding strengths' are: required | optional.
>
> I have proposed that this be modelled as:
>
>- required: Boolean
>- recommendation: enum ( preferred | example )
>
> If we get rid of the example idea (which I think is just noise) then we
> just need 'required'. If required is false, and there is a value set
> specified, clearly it is 'preferred' or recommended in some sense. If there
> is no value set, it's truly open.
>
> Interested in other thoughts on this, particularly a) users of this FHIR
> scheme and b) SNOMED, LOINC, ICD etc specialists.
> --
> Thomas Beale
> Principal, Ars Semantica 
> Consultant, ABD Project, Intermountain Healthcare
> 
> Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation
> 
> Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society
> 
> Health IT blog  | Culture blog
>  | The Objective Stance
> 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>


-- 
-
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grah...@healthintersections.com.au
/ +61 411 867 065
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

[Thomas Beale]

Last week, we had a workshop on ADL2 in Germany, to try to sort out a 
few issues on the way to making ADL2 mainstream in openEHR 
implementations. See here for the wiki page 
.


One of the issues discussed was on what basis terminology code 
constraints (value sets, generally) in archetypes (or templates) could 
be considered optional, recommended etc (discussion page here 
). 
Some here will recognise this question as roughly the one that FHIR's 
'binding strengths'  
tries to solve. I can understand two of the settings:


 * /required/: thou shalt use one of these here codes
 * /preferred/: we recommend these codes but you can use what you like

I don't know how useful it is to put 'example' value sets in a content 
model, since there might be many possible examples, differing across the 
world. If there is an obvious example that makes sense for the scope / 
geography of application of the archetype, e.g. some SNOMED or LOINC 
subset, then this seems to me to be a case of 'preferred'.


But my main issue is with 'extensible'. In FHIR, this means: you should 
use one of these codes if it applies to your concept, but otherwise you 
can use something else. In my view, in reality, this is the same as 
'preferred'. It's worth considering what it would mean to mandate codes 
that are supplied in a value-set, but then to say, for other meanings 
not covered, use something else. This means that the value-set is 
considered not to be complete, i.e. to exhaustively cover the concept 
space. Supplying half-built value-sets seems like a very unreliable 
thing to be doing in shared clinical models. Is the value set 90% 
complete? Or only 10%? The whole idea of specifying partial value sets 
in clinical models just seems bad to me.


If we assume that value sets are always well-designed, and exhaustive, 
then the only real 'binding strengths' are: required | optional.


I have proposed that this be modelled as:

 * required: Boolean
 * recommendation: enum ( preferred | example )

If we get rid of the example idea (which I think is just noise) then we 
just need 'required'. If required is false, and there is a value set 
specified, clearly it is 'preferred' or recommended in some sense. If 
there is no value set, it's truly open.


Interested in other thoughts on this, particularly a) users of this FHIR 
scheme and b) SNOMED, LOINC, ICD etc specialists.


--
Thomas Beale
Principal, Ars Semantica 
Consultant, ABD Project, Intermountain Healthcare 

Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation 

Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society 

Health IT blog  | Culture blog 
 | The Objective Stance 

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org