On 01/04/2010 20:04, Fabrice Camous wrote:
Hi all,
If we
pretend that the reference model describes paper-based components, where
our objects are folders, separators, sheets, it means that our
archetypes lead to very structured pages (ignoring the folder and
separator arrangements),
Sent: Friday, 12 March 2010 2:47 AM
To: openEHR-technical at openehr.org
Subject: Re: Term bindings in archetypes and templates
Thanks Stef,
It's a nice paper indeed, and it formulates the confusions I had about
SNOMED, which is covering different perspectives of the medical
reality
Sent: den 11 mars 2010 01:46
To: openehr-technical at chime.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Term bindings in archetypes and templates
Hi Mikael,
You may be interested in our mapping tool, Snapper, which is
designed to
tackle this problem for mapping to (not from) SNOMED CT. It
provides
Thomas Beale wrote:
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
Hi Mikael,
You may be interested in our mapping tool, Snapper, which is designed to tackle
this problem for mapping to (not from) SNOMED CT. It provides extensive
support for mapping to post-coordinated expressions where single-concept maps
are not possible and can be used to create
Mikael Nystr?m wrote:
I agree that we have to wait and see how much problems we will get. That was
also my reason to reply to Sebastian's e-mail which told that there is no
problem to add terminology bindings after the archetypes are finalized.
However, I didn't refer to theoretical worst
[mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of
Michael.Lawley at csiro.au
Sent: den 11 mars 2010 01:46
To: openehr-technical at chime.ucl.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Term bindings in archetypes and templates
Hi Mikael,
You may be interested in our mapping tool, Snapper, which
On 11/03/2010 11:59, Stef Verlinden wrote:
For those of you interested in the 'problems' within Snomed as an ontology,
here (http://precedings.nature.com/documents/3465/version/1) you can find a
good and recent article describing them. This doesn't mean we shouldn't use
Snomed, but knowing
Hi Sebastien,
Thanks for the comments and advice. See my brief notes below.
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
Dear Thomas, Mikael and Michael
Thanks for the useful comments which I will try to digest and
incorporate into my study.
I note that two of my original questions remain unanswered
- Are there any mature templates - linked to existing archetypes which
I could use to extract bindings? These
On 11/03/2010 15:57, Sheng,Yu wrote:
If term bindings or constraint bindings exist in Archetypes before they
are made into templates, how are the terminology subsets subsequently
added to templates? Are they completely new termsets,
somehow-related-to, or ontologically-subsumed-by the
: Term bindings in archetypes and templates
Hi Mikael,
You may be interested in our mapping tool, Snapper, which is designed to
tackle this problem for mapping to (not from) SNOMED CT. It provides
extensive support for mapping to post-coordinated expressions where
single-concept maps
: Re: Term bindings in archetypes and templates
Hi Mikael,
You may be interested in our mapping tool, Snapper, which is designed to
tackle this problem for mapping to (not from) SNOMED CT. It provides
extensive support for mapping to post-coordinated expressions where
single-concept maps
On 11-Mar-10 12:59, Stef Verlinden wrote:
For those of you interested in the 'problems' within Snomed as an ontology,
here (http://precedings.nature.com/documents/3465/version/1) you can find a
good and recent article describing them. This doesn't mean we shouldn't use
Snomed, but knowing
Hi Sheng,
A few of my comments below...
Ian
Dr Ian McNicoll
office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
skype ianmcnicoll
ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com
ian at mcmi.co.uk
Clinical Analyst Ocean Informatics openEHR Archetype Editorial Group
Member BCS Primary Health Care
On 11/03/2010 17:07, Fabrice Camous wrote:
Thanks Stef,
It's a nice paper indeed, and it formulates the confusions I had about
SNOMED, which is covering different perspectives of the medical reality.
But this leads me to questions I have precisely about the bindings of
the ontology part of
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
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
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?
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
