Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

by on incomplete agreements well specifying and publishing an incomplete value set in a model intended as some sort of standard means the authors don't understand terminology. Consider: if new top-level codes are later found, they really should be children of an 'other' top-level category

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

om it for no good reason. In a world where everyone has a terminology server and time to consult it, that may be harmless. But only may (there's deep subtleties there). And that's not a world we live in. > > There is a big difference between best-practice and reality and we don’t > wan

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

'Example' is surely a documentation level concept, not a computational one, and I would think often local. So if you are locally saying 'here's an example', it's pretty close to saying 'we recommend you use this (in this locality)'. So I would think at best it would appear in the annotations

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

On 16/04/2019 00:16, Heath Frankel 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

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

I meant to say, in the previous post: For large domain value sets (anything beyond ?200), I assume the value set sits in a terminology service, and the archetype just has a binding straight to that. /So there is no problem with the changing contents of this kind of value set/, from

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

> > > 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'? > >

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

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

RE: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

-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

Re: FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

19> > . > > 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 > <https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ADL/pages/38600722

FHIR-like terminology 'binding strengths'?

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 <https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ADL/pages/386007225/Local+Value-set+Replacement>). Some here wi

Useful openEHR terminology Links on specifications page

There are now some useful links to get to any openEHR terminology group on the specifications home page <https://specifications.openehr.org>(scroll down) in one click. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.opene

Re: Postcoordinated terminology expressions in openEHR

I'm with Ian on this. The only use of post coordination is hard and requires complex tooling support that is way beyond any value you get. I would say even laterality & other qualifiers should go in the information model and not in the terminology if you have the choice. If you are ins

Re: Postcoordinated terminology expressions in openEHR

Hi, just for clarification, you have mixed are two different things: - SNOMED CT postcoordinated expressions are structured combinations of one or more concepts to express a clinical idea. You use them to create new concepts not available in the SNOMED release. They are built using the SNOMED CT

Re: Postcoordinated terminology expressions in openEHR

Yes agree laterality is another potentially high value case. They should probably talk to the CIMI folks. Stan Huff has a good an idea as anyone of both the potential and pitfalls of complex terminology handling. I suspect that really held CIMI back at a critical moment but at least they have

Re: Postcoordinated terminology expressions in openEHR

I mostly agree with Ian, but with the small caveat that for very specific and well-known cases such as body laterality, you just /might consider/ post-coordination on body site e.g. * 56459004 |foot structure| : 272741003 |laterality| = 7771000 |left|) However, even here, laterality often

Re: Postcoordinated terminology expressions in openEHR

Basically - don't!! The UK has been trying to do this for over 20 years without success. It is a terminologists dream but implementers nightmare. Make a start with high-value use cases e.g Allergy agent "Allergic to + causative agent" - so that you do not have to generate a new Snomed code for

Postcoordinated terminology expressions in openEHR

Hi everyone, We've recently started an informal and practically oriented regular contact with the Norwegian SNOMED CT NRC. One of the things they were interested in discussing was how to use postcoordinated SNOMED CT (expression constraint language) expressions with openEHR, which I know

Re: What's the correct XML in an OPT for multiple terminology references?

Just remembered children of attribute can handle multiple alternatives, while this is syntactically correct I'm not sure if the alternatives can be of the same object type: defining_code

What's the correct XML in an OPT for multiple terminology references?

Hi, I'm having trouble generating OPTs (1.4) from archetypes that reference multiple terminologies from a DV_CODED_TEXT. For instance, I have a coded node that will be coded by LOINC or SNOMED-CT, that can be set in the archetype. But when exporting the OPT from the Template Designer, only LOINC

Re: Identifying archetype nodes in AQL via terminology code

e OpenEHR/13606 binds Codes from Reference Terminologies to archetype/template structures inside EHR systems and messages or documents. > In future, it is not out of the question that different types of OPTs would > be generated that would treat bound terminology codes as if they

Re: Identifying archetype nodes in AQL via terminology code

018, at 10:33, Birger Haarbrandt wrote: > > Hi Georg, > > currently, this is not possible directly using AQL. However, technically it > is possible to make a look-up within all archetypes to automatically retrieve > the elements (and their paths) that have a matchin

Re: Identifying archetype nodes in AQL via terminology code

On 06/09/2018 09:46, Ian McNicoll wrote: Hi Thomas, Would it not at least in theory be possible to ignore the atCode? We can already do searches that ignore archetype node Ids at a higher level. It would be challenging to implement but I can certainly see some value. under the covers, I

Re: Identifying archetype nodes in AQL via terminology code

Hi Ian, it's likely I am just plainly wrong here (or just only a little bit), so let me elaborate and find out :) My understanding is: there are some archetypes with terminology bindings on element level, for example the blood pressure archetype. When I am creating a composition based

Re: Identifying archetype nodes in AQL via terminology code

hat would treat bound terminology codes as if they were > the structural ones, but this is probably a long way off. Some further > ideas about this in the ADL2 spec > <https://www.openehr.org/releases/AM/latest/docs/ADL2/ADL2.html#_terminology_integration>, > and also the OPT2 spec

Re: Identifying archetype nodes in AQL via terminology code

the subsumption capablities of a terminology like SNOMED *(which is what I think Birger was saying). - that requires coordination between AQL and the underlying terminology server. This has been done by individual implementers but not in a generic way to date. Back soon with more details!! Ian

Re: Identifying archetype nodes in AQL via terminology code

terminology codes as if they were the structural ones, but this is probably a long way off. Some further ideas about this in the ADL2 spec <https://www.openehr.org/releases/AM/latest/docs/ADL2/ADL2.html#_terminology_integration>, and also the OPT2 spec <https://www.openehr.org/re

Re: Identifying archetype nodes in AQL via terminology code

terminology-binding (for example to the snomed code for gender). This path could then be used within an AQL query which can use the code for "male". I actually was thinking about building such a tool within HiGHmed make analytics quers more convenient, though we are still searching for a

Re: Identifying archetype nodes in AQL via terminology code

Hi Georg, currently, this is not possible directly using AQL. However, technically it is possible to make a look-up within all archetypes to automatically retrieve the elements (and their paths) that have a matching terminology-binding (for example to the snomed code for gender). This path

Identifying archetype nodes in AQL via terminology code

CONTAINSDEMOGRAPHICS d WHERE d.items[at0017].value = 'snomed-ct:248153007' Is it possible to identify the node of an archetype instead of its path parts (e.g. d.gender or d.items[at0017]) also with a terminology code, so the query would rather look like something like that: SELECT e FROMEHR e

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Le 05/04/2018 à 15:43, Thomas Beale a écrit : > we really should build a combined descriptive architecture to show how > all this fits together to solve: > > * the continuum of deterministic - non-deterministic utterances > possible in healthcare > * the linguistic interface v structured

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

pet" (Fil guide) that helps you walk more comfortably (this process being iterative, you can "follow the carpet as it unfolds", but can also head on in another direction). well maybe 'structural terminology' is a bad term; what I am really talking about is /models of possible conte

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

he user (depending on the set of fil guides he > uses) the nodes don't have to remember what fil guide they originate from. > > To sum it up, you can have a journey walking in well known areas (archetypes) > and finding your way in the wild (tree filling interface). When in the wild,

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

alking in well known areas (archetypes) and finding your way in the wild (tree filling interface). When in the wild, you can sometimes be presented with a "step wide carpet" (Fil guide) that helps you walk more comfortably (this process being iterative, you can "follow the carpet as it u

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

knowledge, which is to say knowledge about individual instances, obtained or created in the clinical process. In both cases, ontology (or terminology) provides the meaning of any mentioned element. My point is that you have an ontology (say a terminology with terms grouped as concepts

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Thomas, I will have to digest it. I’ll be back. GF Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 3 Apr 2018, at 11:08, Thomas Beale wrote: > > Some theory along these lines >

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

 Some theory along these lines is needed... On 03/04/2018 08:35, A Verhees wrote: GF :"There are NO agreed standardised archetypes/patterns we all use to define the meta-data in order to document the

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

It is a generic problem that impacts OpenEHR also. Present systems need a lot of implicit human knowledge in order to interpret the data safely and fully. SNOMED pre-corodination is one way to make this implicit knowledge explicit. It possibly is a solution. My point is that it is not the best

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

e temporal aspects for instance can >>> NOT be dealt with in SNOMED, then we have the situation that part of the >>> epistemology is in SNOMED and part defined in the Archetype/Template. >>> >> >> I agree and that is a good example of what I call "context" (ho

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

That is the problem. There is no focus. This discussion will not solve anything. Op di 3 apr. 2018 09:48 schreef GF : > It is Obvious: > > - We need to take the next step in Semantic Interoperability: Semantic > interpretability. > - And think about what is missing, so far > -

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

It is Obvious: - We need to take the next step in Semantic Interoperability: Semantic interpretability. - And think about what is missing, so far - How to use codes from Terminologies and Classifications - How to deal with the full Context/Epistemology - How to deal with modifiers for

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

t; canonical form or golden truth. >> >> >>> >>> When we add to all this that only part of the epistemology can be >>> pre-coordinated it means that part of the temporal aspects for instance can >>> NOT be dealt with in SNOMED, then we have the situati

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

d where > knowledge and information is defined, managed and used, very related to > epistemology :) > > > > Gerard Freriks > +31 620347088 <tel:+31%206%2020347088> > gf...@luna.nl <mailto:gf...@luna.nl> > > Kattensingel 20 > 2801 CA Gouda &g

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

GF :"There are NO agreed standardised archetypes/patterns we all use to define the meta-data in order to document the full eppistemology > so data can be interpreted fully and safely. " > So what do you suggest as a solution? > > > > >> >> Gerard Freriks >> +31 620347088 >>

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

I agree > The message is simple: don't allow items with complex meanings in leafnodes, > but use archetypes to represent complexity. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 3 Apr 2018, at 00:04, A Verhees wrote:

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

of what I call "context" (how and where > knowledge and information is defined, managed and used, very related to > epistemology :) > > >> >> >> Gerard Freriks >> +31 620347088 <+31%206%2020347088> >> gf...@luna.nl >> >> Kattensi

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

see below Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 2 Apr 2018, at 23:35, A Verhees wrote: > > GF: "When we add to all this that only part of the epistemology can be > pre-coordinated it means that part of the

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

2018, at 20:02, Pablo Pazos <pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com> wrote: > > Yes, but the main topic here is the use of SNOMED inside openEHR, so there > is no terminology world separated from the content modeling and data > recording world. We will use SNOMED inside the openEHR context, so the > SNOMED

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

a >> the Netherlands >> >> On 2 Apr 2018, at 20:02, Pablo Pazos <pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com> wrote: >> >> Yes, but the main topic here is the use of SNOMED inside openEHR, so >> there is no terminology world separated from the content modeling and data >>

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

o the case in CEN13606 > > Gerard Freriks > +31 620347088 > gf...@luna.nl > > Kattensingel 20 > 2801 CA Gouda > the Netherlands > > On 2 Apr 2018, at 20:02, Pablo Pazos <pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com> wrote: > > Yes, but the main topic here is the use of SNOME

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

of the ingredients needed to integrate these two focus points. We need more than ContSys: - a model for the epistemology - archetypes designed using re-occuring standardised phrases - terminology providing primitive terms - a generic standardised solution for modifiers: (non-)presence, states, certainty

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Le 02/04/2018 à 19:45, GF a écrit : > 1- What stands AP)SA(A'P’) for? I guess that you know the SOAP as the 4 main "chapters" of a clinical encounter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAP_note). From  Lawrence Weed's concepts, a patient encounter should be recorded as a "grid" with problems as

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

1- What stands AP)SA(A'P’) for? Here below some missing topics we need to have agreement about 2- Thinking about the health and care provission documentation process there are: - Observation process - Evaluation process (including, and restricted to, diagnosis, diff diagnosis, problem kist,

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

obeying the rules of the grammar. >> >> In your usage, 'grammar' is what you call the trees, which are >> extensional maps of legal utterances, or fragments of utterances, which can >> only be connected together according to their rules, which ensure >> correctness of l

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Le 02/04/2018 à 12:54, A Verhees a écrit : > > The "good all" SOAP is dead ; nowadays, the encounter stream is switching to > (AP)SO(A'P'):  > > people now come with an existing set of Assessments and Procedures,  > > not "just" with "Subjective" issues. > > Wasn't that always the case? We are

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

> The "good all" SOAP is dead ; nowadays, the encounter stream is switching to (AP)SO(A'P'): > people now come with an existing set of Assessments and Procedures, > not "just" with "Subjective" issues. > Wasn't that always the case? ___

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

urse simply limited in complexity by what can be expressed using the current state of ontology and the grammar > I mostly agree here, with one major exception: entering a diagnosis. > In that case, you do want subsets that are meaningful to your work > context. If it is paediatric oncol

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

ined many weird pre-coordinations (the > famous example being 'hit by falling space junk while riding a > bicycle'), but was also only O(10k) in size. > > So the 'size of the problem' is often inversely proportional to its > awfulness, when talking about legacy terminology use, and this i

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

> On 2 Apr 2018, at 01:11, Pablo Pazos <pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com> wrote: > > I'm sorry but "...no cancer was, is, or will be present." doesn't even make > sense. No system can record what can or can't happen in the future, and that > concept is not part of any term

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

I think, we happen to be in full agreement. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 2 Apr 2018, at 01:06, Thomas Beale wrote: > > > In a so-called closed-world system, everything that is stated constitutes

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

I'm sorry but "...no cancer was, is, or will be present." doesn't even make sense. No system can record what can or can't happen in the future, and that concept is not part of any terminology AFAIK. On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 7:35 PM, GF <gf...@luna.nl> wrote: > Thomas, > &g

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

In a so-called closed-world system, everything that is stated constitutes the totality of the truths about the world it relates to. In particular, /absence/ of an assertion (such as 'patient X has cancer') means negation, i.e. that patient X doesn't have cancer. But openEHR and 13606 don't

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Thomas, OpenEHR and 13606 deal with Closed World Assumption systems. And therefor both mean in the case of 'No Cancer' that Cancer was not found in the database or that No Cancer was the documented result of an evaluation. Both statements are documented things in a Template that according to the

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

On 01/04/2018 13:16, GF wrote: Pre-coordinated SNOMED codes are like classifications, in that they are used at the user level, the User Interface, The Ontology behind SNOMED allows the pre-ordinated codes to be decomposed in its constituents. These decomposed primitive codes can be used in

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

unk while riding a bicycle'), but was also only O(10k) in size. So the 'size of the problem' is often inversely proportional to its awfulness, when talking about legacy terminology use, and this is what makes it possible to do something about it. The fact is, many old systems just couldn't expr

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

In system interfaces we must not use pre-coordinted SNOMED terms. In User Interfaces we can to use them. In extremo one pre-co-ordinated code can describe the whole oeuvre of Shakespeare which makes sense in very specific circumstances for very specific purposes Gerard Freriks +31 620347088

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Pre-coordinated SNOMED codes are like classifications, in that they are used at the user level, the User Interface, The Ontology behind SNOMED allows the pre-ordinated codes to be decomposed in its constituents. These decomposed primitive codes can be used in structures like archetypes at the

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

y. I mostly agree here, with one major exception: entering a diagnosis. In that case, you do want subsets that are meaningful to your work context. If it is paediatric oncology, you may have a form with a field that can only be some kind of cancer or related Dx that that department deals w

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

ong because it doesn’t take into account that >>> healthcare is unpredictable, and this makes recording more difficult for >>> the clinician. How many different variations would you have to select from? >>> Take the made up example “sitting systolic blood pressure with a medi

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Style can be explained, please do. Documentation ontology can be useful. Please send that too. Thanks Bert Op za 31 mrt. 2018 13:27 schreef GF : > What do you expect from a technical description when it comes to styles? > Under the hood one sees no striking differences. >

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

What do you expect from a technical description when it comes to styles? Under the hood one sees no striking differences. Archetype nodes are archetype nodes, leafnodes are leafnodes. What is different is the way one uses ADL to constrain the RM. Or do you mean to see the documentation Ontology?

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

te any story, describing the >> observation/evaluation/planning/ordering and action processes including all >> the possible contexts. >> All the Archetype Patterns create one Documentation ontology. >> >> That Documentation ontology as grammar combined with a terminolog

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

hat can be used to create any story, describing the > observation/evaluation/planning/ordering and action processes including all > the possible contexts. > All the Archetype Patterns create one Documentation ontology. > > That Documentation ontology as grammar combined with a termi

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

the Archetype Patterns create one Documentation ontology. That Documentation ontology as grammar combined with a terminology like SNOMED and LOINC looks like Phillipe's system. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 31 Mar 2018, at 11

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

The specialisation in the OpenEHR RM itself is an anomaly, that can be circumvented. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 31 Mar 2018, at 12:14, Bert Verhees wrote: > > On 31-03-18 12:11, GF wrote: >> Both

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

On 31-03-18 12:11, GF wrote: Both styles are possible with any RM. It is a choice. Do you mean, inside OpenEhr by using the GenericEntry? Or are there other entry-types possible also? Most archetype modellers use the Class-Attribute / Archetype Node style. Gerard   Freriks +31 620347088

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Both styles are possible with any RM. It is a choice. Most archetype modellers use the Class-Attribute / Archetype Node style. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 31 Mar 2018, at 11:04, Bert Verhees wrote: >

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

; >   > > Regards, > > *Silje* > >   > > *From:*openEHR-technical > <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org > <mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org>> *On Behalf > Of *Mikael Nyström > *Sent:* Fr

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Maybe we should relate this thinking to CEN13606 because that Reference Model allows more generic thinking. (Thinking this because GF was the convenor of this CEN standard) But even then some more explanation would be welcome. Bert On 31-03-18 10:37, GF wrote: Dear Thomas, There are two

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Dear Thomas, There are two possible Modelling styles: - Archetype Leafnode style (Element-Data style) Specialisation by changing the Element Data field Each archetype is a fixed, standardised, pattern, a mini-ontology The fixed path to the leaf-node defines the full meaning of that leaf-node -

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Le 30/03/2018 à 17:38, Thomas Beale a écrit : > > Paths is also how openEHR querying works, and in pretty much the same > way, except for the technical fact of using archetype codes rather > than literal strings. > > - thomas > I wrote literal strings for clarity ; actually it is a path of codes

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Gerard, I don't know that your modelling approach is that far from openEHR - you are from memory using CLUSTER in a way we are not, but I don't recall the details. In any case, is there a recent reference page on the web where a technical summary of your modelling style can be seen? thanks

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

face, Template must contain the data and its full >> context/ epistemology. >> The Archetypes in my thinking are standardised patterns with which to >> construct an Entry archetype. >> >> My hierargy becomes: >> >> Ontology - Encyclo

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Paths is also how openEHR querying works, and in pretty much the same way, except for the technical fact of using archetype codes rather than literal strings. - thomas On 30/03/2018 16:25, Philippe Ameline wrote: For example: Echocardiography     Indication             Findings    

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

n the data and > its full context/ epistemology. > The Archetypes in my thinking are standardised patterns with which to > construct an Entry archetype. > > My hierargy becomes: > > Ontology- Encyclopedia > Terminology- Dictionary > Cluster Archetype- Standardised phrases/patterns

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

patterns with which to construct an Entry archetype. My hierargy becomes: Ontology- Encyclopedia Terminology - Dictionary Cluster Archetype - Standardised phrases/patterns Entry Archetype - Clinical sentence including epistemology/context (collection

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Hi Philippe, See inline please On Friday, March 30, 2018, Philippe Ameline <philippe.amel...@free.fr> wrote: > Le 28/03/2018 à 23:42, GF a écrit : > > I see the analogies: > - Ontology = Encyclopedia > - Terminology = Dictionary > - Archetype = Phrase > > >

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Le 28/03/2018 à 23:42, GF a écrit : > I see the analogies: > - Ontology= Encyclopedia > - Terminology = Dictionary > - Archetype = Phrase Hi Gerard, I would rather see Archetypes as "discourse models" that form a mold for sentences or groups of sentences. The Phrase, in

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Dear Philippe, On purpose I provided these examples. I agree that anatomic structures can be pre-coordinated. They are the exception to the rule. And perhaps in the domain of medical devices we could have exceptions. I see the analogies: - Ontology = Encyclopedia - Terminology

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

concepts: Left Eye, Right Eye. > Eye White coloured Red, ‘Blue eye’. All terms one expects in a > pattern/standard phrase using words from a dictionary in a syntax. > > The rule is: > Pre-coordination is done via Archetype/Patterns using Primitive concepts. > Pre-coordination is not done v

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

-technical digest..." Today's Topics:    1. Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again (A Verhees) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 06:25:19 + From: A Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl> To: For o

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

; > *Från:* openEHR-technical [mailto: > openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] *För *Bert Verhees > *Skickat:* den 23 mars 2018 20:01 > > > *Till:* openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org > *Ämne:* Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again > > > > Diego, this is a wise thoug

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

e Family History > archetype. The archetype context is invaluable here. And the terminology > community focussing on high value terms that would provide great impact. > > > > Regards > > > > Heather > > > > > > *From:* openEHR-technical <openehr-technical-

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

igh quality value > sets from in multiple archetypes for different contexts eg a list of > diagnoses in the Problem/diagnosis archetype as well as the Family History > archetype. The archetype context is invaluable here. And the terminology > community focussing on high value terms that

RE: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

. The archetype context is invaluable here. And the terminology community focussing on high value terms that would provide great impact. Regards Heather From: openEHR-technical <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org> On Behalf Of Bakke, Silje Ljosland Sent: Friday, 23 March 2018 8

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

*Mikael Nyström *Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2018 10:06 AM *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org <mailto:openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>> *Subject:* SV: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again Hi tom, I can agree w

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Dear Silje, I think we agree. In my view it is not wise to use pre-coorinated codes that include contextual information. The reason is that the complete why, when, who and how result in too many permutations in order to be tractable. One must make the distinction between how data is expressed

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

:* openEHR-technical <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org> *On > Behalf Of *Mikael Nyström > *Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2018 10:06 AM > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists. > openehr.org> > *Subject:* SV: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ...

RE: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

day, March 23, 2018 10:06 AM > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists. > openehr.org> > *Subject:* SV: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again > > > > Hi tom, > > > > I can agree with you that if SNOMED CT was created when all pati

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

, or statistical reporting demand it. This means that raw data obtained using Model 3 can be converted to pre-coordinated terms from a Terminology. It is a User Interface issue. All models are orthogonal to each other and intersect at well defined places. Models can not be mixed and overlap. When they do

RE: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

om: openEHR-technical <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org> On Behalf Of Mikael Nyström Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 10:06 AM To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> Subject: SV: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again Hi tom, I can agree w

  1   2   3   >