RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

discussions <openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org> Subject: Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again The killer move would be to do something I advocated for years unsuccessfully: separate SNOMED technology from content and allow them to be independently licensable and used. Here, tech

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

" but in some cases, *it is missing concepts*" Shouldn't we contribute? Is the same as openEHR, there are missing archetypes and we need the community, users, clinical modelers and engineers to contribute. LOINC also misses concepts, and when I asked them how can I contribute, they sent me the

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

The killer move would be to do something I advocated for years unsuccessfully: *separate SNOMED technology from content *and allow them to be independently licensable and used. Here, technology means representation (RF2 for example), open source programming libraries for working with

SV: SV: SV: Terminology bindings ... again

I have now submitted an error report. /Mikael Från: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] För Thomas Beale Skickat: den 12 mars 2018 16:17 Till: openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org Ämne: Re: SV: SV: Terminology bindings ... again

Re: SV: SV: Terminology bindings ... again

Mikael, It might be worthwhile if Snomed International checks that, in case something more important is missing. I say that symathetically, I've had to address numerous such errors we had in our format changeover a couple of years ago, and there have been a couple that were important. I['m

SV: SV: Terminology bindings ... again

erminology bindings ... again That looks useful, but is it finished? The heading 5.1 has the text "Use of SNOMED CT and/or LOINC in" On 12/03/2018 13:43, Mikael Nyström wrote: Hi, Maybe SNOMED International's document "Guidance on use of SNOMED CT and LOINC together",

Re: SV: Terminology bindings ... again

That looks useful, but is it finished? The heading 5.1 has the text "Use of SNOMED CT and/or LOINC in" On 12/03/2018 13:43, Mikael Nyström wrote: Hi, Maybe SNOMED International’s document ”Guidance on use of SNOMED CT and LOINC together”, http://snomed.org/snomedloinc , could be of

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

On 12-03-18 08:51, GF wrote: Nodes in an archetype coded in LOINC and data coded in SNOMED. LOINC defines a way to asks clinical questions which coded answers may be represented by SNOMED-CT. LOINC has the worldwide integration and SNOMED-CT has the  detailed semantics, and is the leading

SV: Terminology bindings ... again

nical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] För GF Skickat: den 12 mars 2018 12:51 Till: Birger Haarbrandt <birger.haarbra...@plri.de> Kopia: For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org> Ämne: Re: Terminology bindings ... again Hi, As far as I remember this separation was th

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

Interesting to know, although I don't see that as an option in latest FHIR spec https://www.hl7.org/fhir/snomedct.html#implicit 2018-03-12 11:15 GMT+01:00 : > FHIR also supports the expression language in the URL with, for example, >

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

Probably we should have a look at https://confluence.ihtsdotools.org/display/SLPG/SNOMED+CT+URI+Standard FHIR also uses the same base uri, but builds the URI using a custom syntax such as http://snomed.info/sct?fhir_vs=isa/138875005 But looking at the Snomed URI standard I assume they will just go

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

Without knowing the internal decision process, I would say that has something to do with the fact that HL7 guys in CIMI already used Loinc for describing document and section codes in CDA (not being uncommon that they just define new Loinc codes to new kinds of documents and sections). Same can be

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

Hi Gerard, are you able to provide more information on the reasoning that led to this decision? Maybe links to documents or any other insights? This would be quite interesting for our acitivities in Germany. Best, -- *Birger Haarbrandt, M. Sc. Peter L. Reichertz Institut for Medical

SV: Terminology bindings ... again

Beale <openehr-techni...@lists.openehr.org> Ämne: Re: Terminology bindings ... again The scope of LOINC is NOT the same as the scope of SNOMED. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl<mailto:gf...@luna.nl> Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands On 12 Mar 2018, at 08:

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

ical@lists.openehr.org> > Kopia: Openehr-Technical <openehr-techni...@lists.openehr.org> > Ämne: Re: Terminology bindings ... again > > Thanks Mikael, that's what I suspected. I'm seeing a convergence in terms of > clinical terminology towards SNOMED CT. > > On Mon,

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

CIMI made the decision to use LOINC for the ‘question' part of the statement. And SNOMED for the ‘answer’ part. Leading to: Question = Answer, or something coded in LOINC is something coded in SNOMED. Nodes in an archetype coded in LOINC and data coded in SNOMED. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088

SV: Terminology bindings ... again

org> Ämne: Re: Terminology bindings ... again Thanks Mikael, that's what I suspected. I'm seeing a convergence in terms of clinical terminology towards SNOMED CT. On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:57 AM, Mikael Nyström <mikael.nyst...@liu.se<mailto:mikael.nyst...@liu.se>> wrote:

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

visor) > > > > *Från:* openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical- > boun...@lists.openehr.org] *För *Pablo Pazos > *Skickat:* den 12 mars 2018 01:39 > *Till:* For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical@lists. > openehr.org> > *Kopia:* Openehr-Technical <openehr-techn

SV: Terminology bindings ... again

-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] För Pablo Pazos Skickat: den 12 mars 2018 01:39 Till: For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org> Kopia: Openehr-Technical <openehr-techni...@lists.openehr.org> Ämne: Re: Terminology bindings ... again

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

RE: Terminology bindings ... again

uses term Effective Time Cheers, -koray From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: Tuesday, 18 July 2017 2:19 a.m. To: Openehr-Technical; For openEHR clinical discussions Subject: Terminology bindings ... again Recently we discussed

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

When you add the descriptions in SNOMED, language of the SNOMED-database would be important, version is already there, I would say "version" instead of min_version, it makes it more generic usable. Bert On 17-07-17 16:19, Thomas Beale wrote: Recently we discussed terminology bindings. We