Instruction archetypes and overlaping nodes with INSTRUCTION.narrative
Indeed, I would say we (technologists) need to work alongside with local clinical leaders, safety review processes and constant audits focused on data flows, processing and use, not only as discussions previous implementation, but we must work together continuously throughout the project, improving the process while implementing it. Technology and rules are good (and feasible) at a certain point, after that, we need human intelligence (from domain experts) to help us out, e.g. to extract information from data, to set the right codes, to structure free text, to link together fragmented pieces of information, etc. Of course this goes far away from my original question, but is always good to exchange opinions. My question was focused on knowing a very basic set of rules of how to interpret and handle possible semantic overlaping between nodes inside the same archetype. Those rules are something that can be implemented easily in an application, but the rules of how to derive structured/coded information from free text are in other league (for people smarter than me and/or multidiscipinary teams). -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: ann.wright...@wales.nhs.uk To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:30:00 + Subject: RE: Instruction archetypes and overlaping nodes with INSTRUCTION.narrative Hi Pablo ? Yes, all this can be relevant, however... My main point was to include the key role of local clinical leads and safety review processes within a particular implementation programme. In the present state of the art (aka until we have a mature evidence-based methodology available to support locally specific implementation decisions rather than relying on theory or opinion) there?s a need for technologists (who tend to like rules, the more ?sophisticated? the better...) to exercise self-discipline regard abstract rules as only a starting point for pragmatic discussion in a particular context. Trade-offs between various ways to use narrative (as discussed earlier in this thread) with other functions such as search analysis would form part of such a pragmatic discussion. Regards, Ann W. Ann M Wrightson Pensaer TG | Lead Technical Design Architect Gwasanaeth Gwybodeg GIG Cymru | NHS Wales Informatics Service Caernarfon: Ff?n/Tel: 01286 674226 Pencoed: WHTN: 01808 8940 Ff?n/Tel: 01656 778940 Symudol/Mobile: 07535 481797 From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of pablo pazos Sent: 30 October 2013 04:28 To: openeh technical Subject: RE: Instruction archetypes and overlaping nodes with INSTRUCTION.narrative Warning this message contains links that it has not been possible to verify as safe. You should only click on the links if you are sure they are from a trusted source. Hi Ann, the case 2 is easy to implement on software with some rules. For case 1 I've seen implementations that use smart terminology services to help doctors to codify their free text when recording information or NLP techniques that process the free text and try to set codes to it's parts (mostly academical work), or more practical second level coding: having a bunch of clinical coders (mainly students of medicine) that read each free text and associate SNOMED-CT or other kinds of fine-grained codes that are classified and grouped by other coarse grained terminologies like ICD-10 or CIAP-2, and then DRG. Assigning codes can be seen as giving structure to free text data, but is not the same: free text data could have an implicit structured model that is not reflected by codes/terminologies/dictionaries... But at the end, the effect is similar: have processable data. The problem with codes is that they don't show the hierarchy that exists in the data, but codes help to show the implicit hierarchy as a plain structure that is easy to map/store in relational databases and be queried using common SQL. The problem comes when you need to query the structure itself, i.e. get some data if a structure defined by archetype A contains other structure defined by archetype B with some data x. On this case, you need to have the hierarchy, some storage that can store that hierarchy and a query language that support those kinds of queries, like AQL. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: Ann.Wrightson at wales.nhs.uk To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:08:10 + Subject: RE: Instruction archetypes and overlaping nodes with INSTRUCTION.narrative A slightly different angle from Thomas? response, from my implementation experience in similar situations: There are two clear ?base cases?: 1. If there is a comprehensive narrative entered by a human then that is the narrative, i.e. any structured or coded data is regarded
EHRServer demo online
Thanks for watching the demo. I hope this app would help to get momentum on the openEHR open source community. Right now projects are very silent, we need to make some noise! One thing I didn't mentioned but most of you already figured out by the chart example, is that with queries is really easy to create clinical dashboards (e.g. the first page of a patient's clinical record, with charts for vital signs, lab studies results, etc.).Queries also simplifies ETL for Datawarehousing systems, because the data quality assurance, formating/transforming steps are oversimplified: data is already in a standard format, and can be exported in common sytanxes as XML or JSON (not loading data directly from DBs or CSV files is a great time saver!).The third application would be rule evaluation for CDS, with queries is really simple to get the exact data needed by a rule to be evaluated, so no custom queries to the DB for every rule created on the system :) (it simplifies scaling and helps on maintainability). But the best part is: all this can be improved if you collaborate. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:26:26 +0200 From: birger.haarbra...@plri.de To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: EHRServer demo online Thank you for sharing. Your application looks pretty neat. Best, Birger Am 26.09.2013 15:16, schrieb pablo pazos: The video of the demo was recorded here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-hs-Ofb8SY Thank you all, hope you enjoyed it! -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: pazospablo at hotmail.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-implementers at lists.openehr.org; ref_impl_java at openehr.org Subject: EHRServer demo online Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:23:43 -0300 Hi all, Tomorrow I'll do a small demo of our EHRServer project. I'll show the EHRServer functionalities, mainly commit and querying, the UI, and a couple of client apps. This will be the same demo as last week (in spanish) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08vAk15utss This will be a Hangout on air. Please check details here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/cqqqc4nt4qu2jup3f3c2692o4i0 Before the demo, I'll publish the link to the Hangout on the event page. The server and clients are all open source: https://github.com/ppazos -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com ___ openEHR-implementers mailing list openEHR-implementers at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- Birger Haarbrandt, M.Sc. Peter L. Reichertz Institut f?r Medizinische Informatik Technische Universit?t Braunschweig und Medizinische Hochschule Hannover M?hlenpfordtstra?e 23 D-38106 Braunschweig T +49 (0)531 391-2129 F +49 (0)531 391-9502 birger.haarbrandt at plri.de http://www.plri.de ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130927/33e3f9ba/attachment.html
Polishing node identifier (at-codes) use cases.
Hi David, IMO LInkEHR rules are a profile of the rules in the specs, that shouldn't make incompatible archetypes between tooling. I would like to see both Archetype Editors to support this profile: to open an archetype with the default behaviour of the specs (not having a nodeID for every node) on LinkEHR Ed. and work ok, and open a profiled archetype in Ocean AE and also work ok. Is that tough to do? As a developer / investigator / trainer, I really don't care about the decisions made but each software provider, I just need stuff to work :-) E.g. I wish one day on an openEHR workshop I can give the option of choosing the Archetype Editor to work with. Right now I only have one option that I know works with archetypes on the CKM, the Ocean one. And some time ago I tried LinkEHR Ed. and it was nice. I wish I can work with that today. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: dam...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 09:49:06 +0200 Subject: Re: Polishing node identifier (at-codes) use cases. To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org 2013/9/2 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com Well, LinkEHR is a real implementation in use by several organizations, and we think these identifiers are needed both technically and methodologically, so we will continue our way of doing thing :-) To be clear, I didn't mean modelling tools, I meant production EHR systems that use the resulting models. Of course, me too: http://www.eurorec.org/news_events/newsArchive.cfm?newsID=239 I'm still not really clear on the rules that LinkEHR uses to decide when at-codes are not defined in the archetype ontology section. The rules are:- Every archetype node always has an explicit unique identifier. We use the at codes to do so, to minimize the impact with current ADL. - The archetype authors decide, during the definition and review process, which nodes need or have a description or terminology binding due to clinical reasons. -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.eshttp://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130902/53db8a17/attachment.html
Polishing node identifier (at-codes) use cases.
Hi all, Maybe this is OT but is related. I remembered a problem I had some time ago working with algorithms that traverses the archetype structure. For CObjects without nodeID, the path of the CObject is equal to the path of it's parent CAttribute, so when I want to get the node with that path using Archetype.node(path), only one of those nodes will be returned. Of course there are workarounds, like checking the type of the returned node, and if a CAttribute is returned but I want the CObject, I just get the node.children()[0]. But that only can be implemented if you know that the path you're using is a path to a CObject, so it depends on the context of your algorithm to expect CObject or CAttribute for a path you have (i.e. if you previously visit a CAttribute and you algorithm traverses from root to leaves, you'll expect next nodes to be CObjects). From a developer point of view, having unique paths would solve a lot of workarounds and ugly code. So having a nodeID for each CObject node is something I would encourage on tooling. I really don't care of having more terms in the ontology :) -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: dam...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:27:39 +0200 Subject: Re: Polishing node identifier (at-codes) use cases. To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org 2013/8/29 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com well the idea here has always been, and remains justified today: an archetype-local definition in words for the meaning of the node is needed, because this says _exactly_ what the designers intended those meanings are given by domain experts, and (with some review, QA process) will be as good as any linguistic definition in any ontology or terminology (probably better, because they are specific to the case at hand) if we are lucky enough to find some code that matches, or approximately describes the same thing in an ontology and/or SNOMED CT / LOINC etc, then we can add those bindings If we were only allowed to define nodes for which matching codes can be found in OBO, SNOMED or other supposedly reliable places, then we would have no chance of building anything but the most meagre archetypes, and no ability to build semantically enabled health information systems. I don't know of any facts that would contradict this long-standing position today... I'm not contradicting those positions, which I agree, I'm just saying that this is a very subjective topic, dependant on the context of use, the availability of some resources (e.g terminological codes) and many other factors. So, we can all do our best but it will be very difficult to have rules that guide which nodes of the archetype have to be identified just based on a structural matter (the rules you asked for). -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130830/64b43b25/attachment.html
Polishing node identifier (at-codes) use cases.
Wow, that's nice. Thanks Thomas.I'll propose the change to the Java Ref Impl project on GitHub (the one I'm using). -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:58:17 +0100 From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Polishing node identifier (at-codes) use cases. On 30/08/2013 14:23, pablo pazos wrote: Hi all, Maybe this is OT but is related. I remembered a problem I had some time ago working with algorithms that traverses the archetype structure. For CObjects without nodeID, the path of the CObject is equal to the path of it's parent CAttribute, so when I want to get the node with that path using Archetype.node(path), only one of those nodes will be returned. the usual thing to do here is to provide two (well actually 4, including the 'has' ones) functions: c_attribute_at_path (a_path: String): C_ATTRIBUTE pre-condition has_attribute_path (a_path) c_object_at_path (a_path: String): C_OBJECT pre-condition has_object_path (a_path) in the ADL workbench, we actually pre-compute this in the parse phase, but that isn't necessary of course. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130830/4e023c51/attachment.html
Polishing node identifier (at-codes) use cases.
Hi all, very interesting discussion.
Another use case is when valid children types are part of the same
class hierarchy (no need for specialization). Do we need at-codes when
we create siblings such as DV_TEXT and DV_CODED_TEXT?
according to the current rules (see my previous post), yes. I would
actually still rather avoid this, and am still thinking about it...
Thinking about this case, shouldn't be a better design approach to define
DV_TEXT at the base archetype, and the DV_CODED_TEXT alternative (with further
constraints) in a specialized archetype?
So the issue of the codes dissapear and anyone can choose to use the very
generic archetype or the specialized one.
This is good from an Object Oriented design approach, but right now the
specializations defined on the CKM are very specific concepts, not just a way
to simplify modeling and reuse of artifacts (as it is in the case I
mentioned).I mean, the specialized archetype is not a more specific concept, is
just the same concept with just a little more detail. E.g. if we take
Healthcare service request and Imaging examinaton request, the specialized
archetype I would create sits right in the middle of those concepts, in fact is
closer to the more generic one.
In short, I don't know if this should be defined at the model level or at the
modeling proess level.
BTW, I aggree with Bert in that we need interoperable archetype design tools.
Back in 2009 we needed to choose an editor, and we tested LiU, Ocean and
LinkEHR, and we couldn't load an archetype created by one tool into another
tool :-/ Maybe now this has improve.
--
Kind regards,
Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
http://cabolabs.com
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:47:11 +0100
From: thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com
To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org
Subject: Re: Polishing node identifier (at-codes) use cases.
On 27/08/2013 18:20, Diego Bosc? wrote:
The problem with this rules come with the (explicit or implicit)
specialization of single attributes. take this example:
ELEMENT[at0009] occurrences matches {0..1} matches { -- Position
value existence matches {0..1}
matches {
DV_TEXT occurrences
matches {0..1} matches {*}
}
}
What happens if a DV_TEXT is added on the specialization? Does it need
at code? Do we consider the rule to be applied to the archetype +
parent or only to the archetypes? Do we need to add an at-code also to
the parent?
If it were added in a specialisation with no code, it would be assumed
to be a redefinition of an existing DV_TEXT constraint, assuming there
was one. If added with a code, the post flattening validation (phase 3)
in the current ADL workbench would need to detect this. Right now it
doesn't have checks in that phase for this. I'll have to run this
example through the compiler to see what it does.
This would need either a rewriting of the rule to state the issue with
flat archetypes or a potential problem if an at-code is not specified.
good point; the rules should specify that they apply to flattened
archetypes, which means that ids are required even if each
specialisation child introduces only one alternative. I'll fix this in
the spec.
Another use case is when valid children types are part of the same
class hierarchy (no need for specialization). Do we need at-codes when
we create siblings such as DV_TEXT and DV_CODED_TEXT?
according to the current rules (see my previous post), yes. I would
actually still rather avoid this, and am still thinking about it...
If we have several different data types, such as DV_BOOLEAN,
DV_QUANTITY, and DV_TEXT and then we want to add a DV_CODED_TEXT,
which one of the data types gets an at-code? all? only the text ones?
none?
according to the previous rules, none. But DV_CODED_TEXT would be
treated as a preferential constraint over DV_TEXT due to the RM
inheritance relationship. It would be up to apps and tools to make use
of that.
Again, rewording/clarification is needed or problems may occur.
yes - I doubt that we are at the final version of the wording on this -
but have a look at the new version and see what you think.
What is so wrong about having at-codes in every class of the archetype
with no ontology definition for that code?
interesting question - so far (10 years!) we have always treated an
at-code as something that is in the ontology. At the moment no tools at
all would handle the assumption that only some codes had definitions; it
would raise questions: how do you know which things need definitions and
which don't? My guess is that there would need to be a special
definition that is connected to the at-codes you want to have no
definitions, which would complicate the archetype ontology section
structure
Polishing node identifier (at-codes) use cases.
Just use archetypeID+nodeID, then you have a unique concept id for each node. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: hugh.les...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; gfrer at luna.nl Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 00:13:29 +0200 Subject: Re: Polishing node identifier (at-codes) use cases. Hi Gerard, This is science, not religion. Can you please give reasons for your statements that archetype nodes must be unique concepts and must be uniquely identified? In openEHR and 13606, the archetype is the unique concept which means that nodes quite rightly can have unique meaning in the context of the archetype. This is like human language where the same word can have different meanings depending on the context used. I have never been given a scientific reason why every node in an archetype should be uniquely coded or have unique meaning outside the archetype itself. I have never found a use case that makes this necessary but would be interested if anyone can show me one. Regards Hugh - Original message - From:Gerard Freriks gfrer at luna.nl Date:28 August 2013 1:26:14 PM Subject:Re: Polishing node identifier (at-codes) use cases. To:For openEHR technical discussions openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org David, Can I summarise it for my understanding as:- AT codes are pointers to an 'ontology'.- AT codes can be considered symbols that represent a particular concept- The 'ontology' provides a name that will be used to display the name of a node (concept) in an archetype.- When a node is specialised the node name used will indicate a new concept (its meaning has changed)- When the archetype is specialised ideally the new concept in the specialisation is a subordinate concept.- When a Node is specialised the standard does not prescribe that the new concept is a sub-set of the previous one.- The question is: is each Node (and the concept it represents) unique or not.- The question is: is it obligatory that each node in the archetype carries a unique code of the form AT . My answers to both questions are:- Each archetype node is a unique concept that must have attached to it a unique identifier.- Archetype editors must support this. And I would like to add:- When specialising each specialised concept must be a subset of its previous one. Gerard Freriks+31 620347088gfrer at luna.nl On 28 aug. 2013, at 09:13, David Moner damoca at gmail.com wrote:I'll try to summarize the origin of the different views we have regarding this topic and maybe this can be also useful to see why this is not just a configuration problem of the tools. We can find the explanation of node identifiers in two places (I use the latest drafts, I think):- In AOM 1.5 specifications, page 47: Semantic identifier of this node, used to distinguish sibling nodes of the same type. [Previously called ?meaning?]. Each node_id must be defined in the archetype ontology as a term code.- In ADL 1.5 specifications, page 26: In cADL, an entity in brackets of the form [at] following a type name is used to identify an object node, i.e. a node constraint delimiting a set of instances of the type as defined by the reference model. and A Node identifier is required for any object node that is intended to be addressable elsewhere in the same archetype, in a specialised child archetype, or in the runtime data and which would otherwise be ambiguous due to sibling object nodes The definition in AOM is the one followed by the openEHR editor, i.e. a node identifier or at code is just a pointer to the ontology section and a mechanism to distinguish sibling nodes. Thus, wherever it is not needed, the tool does not introduce that code in order not to dirty the ontology section. The first part of the definition in ADL is the one followed in LinkEHR and, in our opinion, more correct formally. When you introduce an archetype constraint for a C_OBJECT you are in fact creating a definition of a type (a sub-type of the more generic type defined by the reference model class) that will be used to create a subset of instances. We have to distinguish this sub-type from the RM type, and since the class name cannot be changed, the only solution is to use the at as type identifier. In other words, our interpretation is that at codes are unique identifiers of each type defined in the archetype, that may be also used to link to the ontology section, but that is the optional part. In fact, the only exception to this would be when you create constraints using a path, because then you are just navigating through the RM but do not change the meaning of the intermediate classes. The logic of the tools and the validation checks of archetypes are built based on those interpretations. I agree with Bert in one thing: tools shouldn't change things without notifications, but in this case we face a methodological difference, not just a configuration one, and that's why
Polishing node identifier (at-codes) use cases.
Yep, that should be necessary in case of archetypeID collisions. Maybe in the future we have an archetypeID server (like a DNS protocol) to query for archetypeID to globally check for uniqueness. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: yamp...@gmail.com Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 02:06:54 +0200 Subject: Re: Polishing node identifier (at-codes) use cases. To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org don't forget the organization responsible for that archetype ;D 2013/8/29 pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com Just use archetypeID+nodeID, then you have a unique concept id for each node. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: hugh.les...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; gfrer at luna.nl Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 00:13:29 +0200 Subject: Re: Polishing node identifier (at-codes) use cases. Hi Gerard, This is science, not religion. Can you please give reasons for your statements that archetype nodes must be unique concepts and must be uniquely identified? In openEHR and 13606, the archetype is the unique concept which means that nodes quite rightly can have unique meaning in the context of the archetype. This is like human language where the same word can have different meanings depending on the context used. I have never been given a scientific reason why every node in an archetype should be uniquely coded or have unique meaning outside the archetype itself. I have never found a use case that makes this necessary but would be interested if anyone can show me one. Regards Hugh - Original message - From:Gerard Freriks gfrer at luna.nl Date:28 August 2013 1:26:14 PM Subject:Re: Polishing node identifier (at-codes) use cases. To:For openEHR technical discussions openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org David, Can I summarise it for my understanding as:- AT codes are pointers to an 'ontology'.- AT codes can be considered symbols that represent a particular concept- The 'ontology' provides a name that will be used to display the name of a node (concept) in an archetype.- When a node is specialised the node name used will indicate a new concept (its meaning has changed)- When the archetype is specialised ideally the new concept in the specialisation is a subordinate concept.- When a Node is specialised the standard does not prescribe that the new concept is a sub-set of the previous one.- The question is: is each Node (and the concept it represents) unique or not.- The question is: is it obligatory that each node in the archetype carries a unique code of the form AT . My answers to both questions are:- Each archetype node is a unique concept that must have attached to it a unique identifier.- Archetype editors must support this. And I would like to add:- When specialising each specialised concept must be a subset of its previous one. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gfrer at luna.nl On 28 aug. 2013, at 09:13, David Moner damoca at gmail.com wrote: I'll try to summarize the origin of the different views we have regarding this topic and maybe this can be also useful to see why this is not just a configuration problem of the tools. We can find the explanation of node identifiers in two places (I use the latest drafts, I think):- In AOM 1.5 specifications, page 47: Semantic identifier of this node, used to distinguish sibling nodes of the same type. [Previously called ?meaning?]. Each node_id must be defined in the archetype ontology as a term code.- In ADL 1.5 specifications, page 26: In cADL, an entity in brackets of the form [at] following a type name is used to identify an object node, i.e. a node constraint delimiting a set of instances of the type as defined by the reference model. and A Node identifier is required for any object node that is intended to be addressable elsewhere in the same archetype, in a specialised child archetype, or in the runtime data and which would otherwise be ambiguous due to sibling object nodes The definition in AOM is the one followed by the openEHR editor, i.e. a node identifier or at code is just a pointer to the ontology section and a mechanism to distinguish sibling nodes. Thus, wherever it is not needed, the tool does not introduce that code in order not to dirty the ontology section. The first part of the definition in ADL is the one followed in LinkEHR and, in our opinion, more correct formally. When you introduce an archetype constraint for a C_OBJECT you are in fact creating a definition of a type (a sub-type of the more generic type defined by the reference model class) that will be used to create a subset of instances. We have to distinguish this sub-type from the RM type, and since the class name cannot be changed, the only solution is to use the at as type identifier. In other words, our interpretation is that at codes are unique identifiers of each type defined in the archetype, that may
Want to test an openEHR repository?
Hi everybody! I'm building a very simple Shared EHR Server with Composition commit and query services. The project is here: https://github.com/ppazos/cabolabs-ehrserver The server is working but I'm finishing some improvements on the backend. I hope to deploy an instance online in a couple of weeks to play around, just for coordination purposes:does anyone want to try the commit and query services? I'll publish some basic documentation soon, so anyone who wants to try has all the needed info. Of course I'm available for any questions, comments and suggestions. There's no need to have XML Composition instances, I can provide 2 or 3 instances I use to test, so you can change the data on those XMLs. BTW, there's a client app that already talks to the server: https://github.com/ppazos/cabolabs-emrapp (this app generates 3 different XML Composition instances). -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130820/2dfb1711/attachment.html
SV: ACTIVITY and timing
Hi Koray, I think the RM timing attribute really refers to the date/time when the information about that Activity was committed ? not necessarily the actual time the event modelled in an Action type of entry. So it can be an arbitrary date/time, e.g. within the next 2 weeks etc. It may not happen in real life (e.g. waiting lists or patient no show etc.) but if/when happens the ACTION will capture that. Reviewing the specs, I think that's not correct. For recording ACTIVITY commit times, the model would use DvDateTime instead of DvParsable, and there are a lot of places you can use to record that time, e.g. in the COMPOSITION, AUDIT_DETAILS, ...The specs say that's the time spec for the planned ACITIVY, i.e. when the ACTIVITY should be executed by an ACTION, not when the ACTIVITY was recorded or committed ... the timing information in each Activity does indicate times, days and the usual specifications of ?with meals? etc. The timing information is also sufficient to specify a three drug chemotherapy regime, by indicating which days each drug is administered on. ehr_im page 60 A related issue, I think it?d be a good idea to include within the archetype very clear description of timing (as opposed to capturing using RM date/time from a series of related archetypes) for summary type records (e.g. medicines list, care summaries, reconciliation report etc.) I think it is a bit too much to expect EHR systems to look at each and every relevant archetype (in this case Instruction and Action types) and create a summary view by finding which one is the beginning, most recent etc. While individual events? timing can be dealt with RM timing attribute I think summary type instances should capture this information. Anyway I may be wrong or even not directly an answer to current topic but relevant. For planned ACTIVITIES is good to have a clear time specification for executing those ACTIVITIES. That was what I meant on previous emails comparing the archetyped timing vs. the parsable on ACTIVITY.timing: the archetyped form help us (developers) to create the UI and DB on one way, the parsable form give us too much freedom (sometimes this is a problem :) Cheers, -koray From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of pablo pazos Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013 3:24 a.m. To: openEHR Clinical; openeh technical Subject: RE: SV: ACTIVITY and timing Hi Thomas, thanks for the input, is great to understand the rationale behind ACTIVITY.timing. Right now I've more questions than proposals :) ...The RM says that ACTIVITY.timing should always be present, and i believe it should be, otherwise processing software doesn't know what to do... Should all INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITIES be processed by a processing software? My guess is no, but maybe I'm wrong. It would be great to hear arguments on that. The need for timing seems to be required for medication INSTRUCTIONs, or generalizing that: all INSTRUCTIONS that involve some kind of event repetition/frequency. But what about LAB/RAD requests? Those are one time events, and their execution depends on scheduling, i.e. timing on request could not be something formal and specific. In practice, the only time specification I know for LAB/RAD requests is the urgent flag, and the real time of execution depends on the resource availability on each health center. What do you think about timing specification of ACTIVITIES that have no repetitions? What values should we use for ACTIVITY.timing when recording a RAD request? BTW, for all in this discussion, there are some awesome slides from Sam that shows different timing options for medication: http://www.slideshare.net/atalagk/what-if-we-never-agree-on-a-common-health-information-model (form slide 6) -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:04:12 +0100 From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: SV: ACTIVITY and timing Hi Bjorn, Pablo, we originally put in the timing field in ACTIVITY as a DV_PARSEABLE precisely because there seemed to be no accepted standard for representing this information. I think there is still no single accepted standard, but I think that possible standards are better understood. One of the complicating factors is that timing that is linked to real world events (e.g. 'take one after evening meal') doesn't have a widely accepted representation. The HL7 GTS format is not widely liked, and probably doesn't deal with enough situations anyway. But it was a decent attempt, and i for one don't know of any standard that cleanly mixes purely clock timing concepts with real world events. The RM says that ACTIVITY.timing should always be present, and i believe it should be, otherwise processing software doesn't know
SV: ACTIVITY and timing
Hi Thomas, On 13/08/2013 16:23, pablo pazos wrote: Hi Thomas, thanks for the input, is great to understand the rationale behind ACTIVITY.timing. Right now I've more questions than proposals :) ...The RM says that ACTIVITY.timing should always be present, and i believe it should be, otherwise processing software doesn't know what to do... Should all INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITIES be processed by a processing software? My guess is no, but maybe I'm wrong. It would be great to hear arguments on that. The need for timing seems to be required for medication INSTRUCTIONs, or generalizing that: all INSTRUCTIONS that involve some kind of event repetition/frequency. But what about LAB/RAD requests? Those are one time events, and their execution depends on scheduling, i.e. timing on request could not be something formal and specific. In practice, the only time specification I know for LAB/RAD requests is the urgent flag, and the real time of execution depends on the resource availability on each health center. What do you think about timing specification of ACTIVITIES that have no repetitions? What values should we use for ACTIVITY.timing when recording a RAD request? There is no assumption in ACTIVITY.time that the activity is repeated. In the GTS syntax, you can just as easily express a one-off event at a certain time as you can a repeated event. If you use cron syntax, I think you just put a full date / time from memory (although that's pretty unusual usage of cron syntax). I understand that timing can express just one date or a set of dates, what I try to understand is more about semantics: what's the purpose / meaning of having just one date on ACTIVITY.timing? If the answer is to specify the exact date/time that the ACTIVITY should be executed, the RAD/LAB case can be taken as a counter example, because the execution time depends on scheduling, and that is done after the recording the ACTIVITY. I don't know if I made that clear, please let me know if my question is not clear or if my understanding of the timing attribute is incorrect. One crucial thing is to ensure that these data remain interoperable. To do that, we need to limit the syntaxes that could be used in ACTIVITY.timing to a reasonably small number, and standardise their use. I am not sure for example, if it will be a good idea to have 3 ways of expressing '3 times/day for 7 days' or other typical things. Is not a problem to have several ways of expressing timing, as long as those are specified publicly. Then we just need to define some terminilogy subset to express each notation identifier e.g. as MIME-TYPE for email content. Then when we parse the expression, knowing the term id, we can choose the right parser. Obviously we need to write those, that's the easy part, but is easy only if all the notation specs are available and the term subset is specified. - thomas ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130815/6f6234ac/attachment.html
SV: ACTIVITY and timing
Good morning! That archetype seems very new, my recommendation is to use it carefully. The purpose states: ...suitable for computation and display for human interpretation. The second part is not accomplished (directly) by ACTIVITY.timing (a clinician will not understand a cron expression :) In the other hand, ACTIVITY.timing is mandatory in the information model, but in my case I don't use it (let's say I use an empty constraint that allows any timing there, because I can't put there something like ASAP, because I'm dealing with emergency cases). A wild guess about the use of openEHR-EHR-CLUSTER.timing.v1 would be to give structure to timing specifications entered by users, e.g. when you create an event on google calendar and you can configure repetitions / frequency, etc. Then, with that info, you can create a cron expression or ISO6801 duration, and put that on ACTIVITY.timing, and use that expression to trigger events, control ACTIVITY execution, etc. I believe the transformation between data in the CLUSTER to a timing expression is straight forward, but the inverse transformation is not (different timing specification structures could give the same cron expressions). I think the CLUSTER solves a problem for us developers: to know how to create a UI for timing data input. Because ACTIVITY.timing does not appear in archetypes, we have a lot of options of how to develop a UI to get timing info from the user, that will be totally custom, and we have to transform that information from our custom format to a parsable ACTIVITY.timing. With the CLUSTER, the structure is standardized, and we can create not so custom UIs and more generic transformations that we can reuse in different systems. About interchange, both (structure and expression) are suitable to be interchanged and interpreted correctly, the first because you have an archetype that helps the receiver to know how to process the received data, and the latter because is a parsable expression, and the DV_PARSABLE contains all the metadata needed to interpret the data correctly (e.g. choose the right parser).If a system can interpret openEHR archetyped data, it can interpret the timing CLUSTER. If a system supports the information model, then it can handle ACTIVITY.timing. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: b...@dips.no To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 08:54:04 +0200 Subject: SV: ACTIVITY and timing Hi Pablo Thanks for the quick response! I guess you are right regarding Cron and ISO 8601 when it comes to implement the DV_PARSABLE attribute timing on the ACTIVITY class. The openEHR-EHR-CLUSTER.timing.v1 is developed to define ?structured information about the timing (intended or actual) of administration or use of a medicine, other therapeutic good or other intervention that is given on a scheduled basis.? And it?s intended use is ?with medication orders and other instructions where timing is complex and needs to be computable.? This archetype does also include a parsable element named ?parsable syntax?. So the key question is: To be able to exchange structured information about timing ? would it be better to use openEHR-EHR-CLUSTER.timing.v1 or should we use the mandatory parsable timing attribute on ACTIVITY class? I can see pros and cons: Use the attribute on ACTIVITY class: ? To use an attribute that is always present (in EHR Information Model). ? To reduce clinical modeling effort ? since you don?t have to include structure about timing in every ACTIVITY. (I guess clinical modeling should be done with specialization some way to define an Action Archetype with timing information). Use the openEHR-EHR-CLUSTER.timing.v1 (or another defined structure) ? to be able to share timing information as Archetype defined structure between openEHR enabled systems . ? to be able to let the Clinical Modeling people define the complexity of timing in HealthCare I can also see some challenges with the optional attribute WF_DEFINITION on the INSTRUCTION class and the mandatory attribute timing on the ACTIVITY class. I think there will be some correlation between these attributes in a given use-case. With regards, Bj?rn N?ss Product owner Telephone +47 75 59 24 55 Mobile +47 93 43 29 10www.dips.com This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain confidential or private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Fra: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] P? vegne av pablo pazos Sendt: 10. august 2013 14:21 Til: openeh technical Emne: RE: ACTIVITY and timing Hi Bj?rn, I don't use timing yet, but only because the healthcare domains I'm working on doesn't require complex timing management.Said that, I have investigated how to use timing for more complex scenarios, like hospitalization
How to start
regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 16:05:22 -0400 Subject: Re: How to start From: lexisnexis5...@gmail.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org I am pretty good at Java development. But there are two many documents for a prototype. Can you send me a mapping text file and tell me all steps I should take to retrieve and save data into database? I have already downloaded openehr-aom, openehr-ap, openehr-dao, openehr-rm-core, openehr-rm-domain, adl-parser and adl-serializer packages. If you can give me a whole flow, that will be big helpful. Thanks, David On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Ing. Pablo Pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote: Please specify what kind of examples do you need. For the software part I believe you can do it. The binding is just a mapping of the elements I mentioned on my previous messages, in a simple text file. Sent from my LG Mobile Lexis Nexis lexisnexis5490 at gmail.com wrote: May I have some examples? I am starting to understand OpenEHR a little bit. Thanks, David On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Ing. Pablo Pazos pazospablo at hotmail.comwrote: Create tables, saves and retrieves the.same way you do with any other system. This is not black magic, is just data :) But you need to create the bindings. In 2012 I created bindings and give them to developers of a mobile app for a company in Netherlands (Bert works in that project). The developers only had to understand the bindings, not the whole openEHR paradigm. Sent from my LG Mobile Lexis Nexis lexisnexis5490 at gmail.com wrote: Should I create a new database table to store these fields: Last Name: First Name: Date of Birth Date: Gender: Phone: Email: Emergency Contact Person: I get confused about how to save and retrieve data and where data are saved? Thanks, David On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote: Hi Lexis, you can grab the demographic Person archetype here: http://www.openehr.org/ckm/ Then use the ADL Workbench to extract paths, and map those paths with your fields. We call that mapping a binding between archetype nodes and software elements/artifacts. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com http://cabolabs.com/es/home http://twitter.com/ppazos -- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 20:50:29 -0400 Subject: How to start From: lexisnexis5490 at gmail.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org I am a Java developer. I am assigned to develop EHR based on OpenEHR. I read some specifications and they seem very complex to me. For instance, I want to create a web page like: Last Name: First Name: Date of Birth Date: Gender: Phone: Email: Emergency Contact Person: How do I map this object to Archetype? David ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130810/c2eefd3f/attachment.html
ACTIVITY and timing
Hi Bj?rn, I don't use timing yet, but only because the healthcare domains I'm working on doesn't require complex timing management.Said that, I have investigated how to use timing for more complex scenarios, like hospitalization medication management. One option is to use cron expressions. That's great because is a de facto standard for developers, and linux support that at the OS level. So it's something that you can write/parse but also execute to trigger events. Another option would be to use ISO 8601 duration notation, standard and easy to create/parse. I'm sure there are more options out there, but I would recommend those two. In my opinion the current specs lack information about how to use timing, and that makes things more complex to us (developers). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: b...@dips.no To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:24:14 +0200 Subject: ACTIVITY and timing Hi ACTIVITY has a field for timing. It's datatype is parsable. Some archetypes use a CLUSTER archetype to define detailed timing information for the given ACTIVITY. I am curious if anyone have experiences with implementing timing for Activity and which strategy you are using? Will detailed timing information in a CLUSTER make timing information on Activity obsolete? Or will detailed timing information on Activity remove the need for a timing CLUSTER? Bj?rn N?ss Product Owner DIPS ASA Mobil +47 93 43 29 10 ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130810/b10cdd2e/attachment.html
How to start
Create tables, saves and retrieves the.same way you do with any other system. This is not black magic, is just data :) But you need to create the bindings. In 2012 I created bindings and give them to developers of a mobile app for a company in Netherlands (Bert works in that project). The developers only had to understand the bindings, not the whole openEHR paradigm. Sent from my LG Mobile Lexis Nexis lexisnexis5490 at gmail.com wrote: Should I create a new database table to store these fields: Last Name: First Name: Date of Birth Date: Gender: Phone: Email: Emergency Contact Person: I get confused about how to save and retrieve data and where data are saved? Thanks, David On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote: Hi Lexis, you can grab the demographic Person archetype here: http://www.openehr.org/ckm/ Then use the ADL Workbench to extract paths, and map those paths with your fields. We call that mapping a binding between archetype nodes and software elements/artifacts. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com http://cabolabs.com/es/homehttp://twitter.com/ppazos -- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 20:50:29 -0400 Subject: How to start From: lexisnexis5490 at gmail.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org I am a Java developer. I am assigned to develop EHR based on OpenEHR. I read some specifications and they seem very complex to me. For instance, I want to create a web page like: Last Name: First Name: Date of Birth Date: Gender: Phone: Email: Emergency Contact Person: How do I map this object to Archetype? David ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
How to start
Look for oenEHR xml schemas. Sent from my LG Mobile Lexis Nexis lexisnexis5490 at gmail.com wrote: Is RM-objects only used for data interchanges between different EHR system? Does a way to serialize your RM-objects to that database means that I have to create my own tables to store medical data? Where can I get a whole picture about how to retrieve data and save data? As I understand OpenEHR is used to model medical data. Am I right? Thanks, David On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Bert Verhees bert.verhees at rosa.nl wrote: On 08/07/2013 03:21 AM, Lexis Nexis wrote: Is there a tutorial book I can purchase or some examples? Step-by-step tutorial is best. I found ArchetypeSaveLoadExample.java, but I missed a lot of imported libraries. How do I find the source code for this example? David, you have to build your own kernel. There is no fully functional kernel in Java available. There are some wheels you have to reinvent. Be careful with advices in the past, they are always/often based on limited experiences, or have some company-politically background. Think for your own, that is the most important advice I can give you. You must think about: - Database-layer, you have to consider the type of database, and then a way to serialize your RM-objects to that database. - You also must consider your infrastructure, how to handle archetypes, how to validate data against the archetypes, how to communicate with GUI's, etc. - How to have a query-engine which is able to query ADL-paths. (AQL) All this is not available in open source, even good ideas how to do so are not available. There is quite a lot you have to do before you have a working OpenEHR-kernel. So, thinking in terms of displaying data on a website, is something you do not need to do coming months. In fact, that is more or less, the last step. A first step: A good study point to start with is read the Reference Model, and look at the archetypes at: http://www.openehr.org/ckm/ Try to match them, and when you have understood that, than it will become time to think about how to design your kernel. There are many good ways to do so. This list is a good place for advice, especially when you have more specific questions good luck Bert Verhees Thanks, David On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.comwrote: Hi Lexis, you can grab the demographic Person archetype here: http://www.openehr.org/ckm/ Then use the ADL Workbench to extract paths, and map those paths with your fields. We call that mapping a binding between archetype nodes and software elements/artifacts. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com http://cabolabs.com/es/home -- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 20:50:29 -0400 Subject: How to start From: lexisnexis5490 at gmail.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org I am a Java developer. I am assigned to develop EHR based on OpenEHR. I read some specifications and they seem very complex to me. For instance, I want to create a web page like: Last Name: First Name: Date of Birth Date: Gender: Phone: Email: Emergency Contact Person: How do I map this object to Archetype? David ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing listopenEHR-technical at lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
How to start
Please specify what kind of examples do you need. For the software part I believe you can do it. The binding is just a mapping of the elements I mentioned on my previous messages, in a simple text file. Sent from my LG Mobile Lexis Nexis lexisnexis5490 at gmail.com wrote: May I have some examples? I am starting to understand OpenEHR a little bit. Thanks, David On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Ing. Pablo Pazos pazospablo at hotmail.comwrote: Create tables, saves and retrieves the.same way you do with any other system. This is not black magic, is just data :) But you need to create the bindings. In 2012 I created bindings and give them to developers of a mobile app for a company in Netherlands (Bert works in that project). The developers only had to understand the bindings, not the whole openEHR paradigm. Sent from my LG Mobile Lexis Nexis lexisnexis5490 at gmail.com wrote: Should I create a new database table to store these fields: Last Name: First Name: Date of Birth Date: Gender: Phone: Email: Emergency Contact Person: I get confused about how to save and retrieve data and where data are saved? Thanks, David On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote: Hi Lexis, you can grab the demographic Person archetype here: http://www.openehr.org/ckm/ Then use the ADL Workbench to extract paths, and map those paths with your fields. We call that mapping a binding between archetype nodes and software elements/artifacts. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com http://cabolabs.com/es/home http://twitter.com/ppazos -- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 20:50:29 -0400 Subject: How to start From: lexisnexis5490 at gmail.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org I am a Java developer. I am assigned to develop EHR based on OpenEHR. I read some specifications and they seem very complex to me. For instance, I want to create a web page like: Last Name: First Name: Date of Birth Date: Gender: Phone: Email: Emergency Contact Person: How do I map this object to Archetype? David ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
How to start
Hi Bert, I have the need to clarify some of your assertions about my previous messages: Pablo advises you to use a relational database. That?s not true. I supposed David were working with relational, but he didn't confirmed that. openEHR persistence should be DBMS independent, so I'll never advise to use relational over other thing without knowing requirements. DBMS option should depend on requirements. (e.g. how data will be used / consumed). Also, there are different level of persistence needed: for local systems, shared/federated systems, mobile and cloud based. For local systems and some shared systems, I would recommend relational. Maybe also for mobile persistence on the device. For other kinds, I'll suggest XML/JSON based DB. And for some applications, I would recommend EAV or path-value.I know some of those are different from your solution, but that is not mean that are not suitable for a huge space of solutions. I don't believe in one-fits-all solutions. IMO, this doesn't give David the answer he needs. Is good to give him options. Consider he's on a learning process. I don't think that is suitable for a good working kernel, I'm not talking about a kernel, I'm talking about persistence. One architect can put that layer on a kernel or as a service on the cloud, depends also on requirements. because you cannot run path-based queries against it, but for a start it might work. That's not true. Anyone can run path based queries against any type of DBMS, relational included. You just need a query transformer as recommended by AQL articles. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130808/c0229a75/attachment.html
How to start
Hi Lexis, you can grab the demographic Person archetype here: http://www.openehr.org/ckm/ Then use the ADL Workbench to extract paths, and map those paths with your fields. We call that mapping a binding between archetype nodes and software elements/artifacts. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 20:50:29 -0400 Subject: How to start From: lexisnexis5...@gmail.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org I am a Java developer. I am assigned to develop EHR based on OpenEHR. I read some specifications and they seem very complex to me. For instance, I want to create a web page like: Last Name: First Name: Date of Birth Date: Gender: Phone: Email: Emergency Contact Person: How do I map this object to Archetype? David ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130806/95918454/attachment.html
trying to flat archetypes
Hi all, I'm coming back to the flattening problem.
I opened an issue for the null parent problem:
https://github.com/openEHR/java-libs/issues/1This is not a blocker but makes
code more complex since parent should be passed as param to each method that
process an archetype node :-/
As for nodeIDs I will go for changing all the nodeIDs on the flattened
archetype and generate a file of mappings to the original codes, this is
because I can't change nodeID format in AOM java-ref-impl adding something to
resolve nodeID collissions. This issue was a blocker on previous tries:
https://code.google.com/p/openehr-archetype-flattener/.
New code with successful flattening algorithm will be on github soon.
--
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
http://cabolabs.com
From: pazospa...@hotmail.com
To: ref_impl_java at lists.openehr.org; thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com
Subject: RE: trying to flat archetypes
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 21:19:52 -0300
Hi Rong,
I was revisiting the specs :)I'm working with ADL 1.4, trying to implement a
suggestion from Thomas: to flat archetype slots preserving the original node
ids.To do so, I need to use the archetype id and the node id to avoid node
conflicts, e.g.
source archetype:COMPOSITION[at] matches { -- Medication list
...
content cardinality matches {0..*; unordered} matches {
allow_archetype ACTION occurrences matches {0..*} matches {
include
archetype_id/value matches {/openEHR-EHR-ACTION.medication.v1/}
flat archetype:COMPOSITION[at] matches {-- Medication list
...
content cardinality matches {0..*; unordered} matches {
ACTION[openEHR-EHR-ACTION.medication.v1.at] matches { -- Medication
action
The flat ADL file is generated without problems.
When I try to load the flatten archetype, the ADL couldn't be parsed. I've
tried several
formats:openEHR-EHR-ACTION.medication.v1.atopenEHR-EHR-ACTION.medication.v1::atopenEHR-EHR-ACTION.medication.v1_atopenEHR-EHR-ACTION_medication_v1_atopenEHR_EHR_ACTION_medication_v1_at
I couldn't find a format constraint in the spects. In the grammar page 105
here: http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/am/adl.pdfThere is a
constraint for node ids: [a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9_]* V_IDENTIFIER
(the last format I tried seems to be compliant with this constraint but I still
get an exception when parsing pointing to the node with that id).
Maybe there is a different constraint for node ids implemented in the parser?
Thanks a lot!
--
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:26:03 +0200
Subject: Re: trying to flat archetypes
From: rong.acode at gmail.com
To: ref_impl_java at lists.openehr.org
Hi Pablo,
It's most likely to do with node_id format. The ADL parser on the
trunk doesn't really support ADL 1.5 yet.
Cheers,
Rong
On 10 August 2012 19:16, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Rong,
Just a related issue:
When flattening archetypes, when resolving slots, I use nodeID with this
format: archetypeID::at.
That's to avoid collisions between node ids in the root archetype and node
ids of archetypes referenced by slots.
When I parse the flat archetype I get an error, it seems there is a
constraint on nodeID format.
BTW: the flattened ADL was generated by the ADLSerializer.
Encountered ISM_TRANSITION [openEHR-EHR-ACTION.medication.v1::at0018] at
line 47, column 21.
Was expecting one of:
} ...
c_dv_quantity ...
V_TYPE_IDENTIFIER ...
V_TYPE_IDENTIFIER V_LOCAL_TERM_CODE_REF ...
V_TYPE_IDENTIFIER occurrences ...
V_TYPE_IDENTIFIER SYM_MATCHES ...
use_node ...
SYM_ALLOW_ARCHETYPE ...
V_TERMINOLOGY_ID_BLOCK ...
V_CODE_PHRASE ...
+ ...
- ...
V_INTEGER ...
C_DV_ORDINAL ...
true ...
false ...
V_ISO8601_DATE_CONSTRAINT_PATTERN ...
V_DATE ...
| ...
...
I changed :: to _ but I get another exception: (I don't know if this
exception has something to do with the nodeID format or with an
ISM_TRANSITION having a nodeID)
Encountered ISM_TRANSITION [ at line 47, column 21.
Was expecting one of:
} ...
c_dv_quantity ...
V_TYPE_IDENTIFIER ...
V_TYPE_IDENTIFIER V_LOCAL_TERM_CODE_REF ...
V_TYPE_IDENTIFIER occurrences ...
V_TYPE_IDENTIFIER SYM_MATCHES ...
use_node ...
SYM_ALLOW_ARCHETYPE ...
V_TERMINOLOGY_ID_BLOCK ...
V_CODE_PHRASE ...
+ ...
- ...
V_INTEGER ...
--
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:44:19 +0200
Subject: Re: trying to flat archetypes
From: rong.acode at gmail.com
To: ref_impl_java at lists.openehr.org
On 9 August 2012 00:14, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Rong
Open EHRGen Guide in English!
WOW 52 downloads in 44 hours !!!, thanks to all of you interested in the project. I hope this openess to english speaking colleagues will open new collaboration opportunities and help us bring the project to the next level. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: pazospa...@hotmail.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-implementers at lists.openehr.org; openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org; specifications-qualified at openehrfoundation.org; localisation-committee at openehrfoundation.org; localisation-qualified at openehrfoundation.org; software-committee at openehrfoundation.org; software-qualified at openehrfoundation.org Subject: Open EHRGen Guide in English! Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:29:12 -0300 Dear friends and colleagues, I'm very happy to announce that we have published a guide to our EHRGen system, now translated to english! This implied a great effort, but I believe it was worth it. I kindly ask you to review the document and drop me a line if you notice any errors or something that is not clear, or propose improvements to the doc, etc. All the help will be appreciated. As any open source project, all of you who want to contribute with code, testing or documentation will be very welcome. Of course, I'll be available for any questions you have. Thank you and enjoy! Download the framework guide from the google code site: https://code.google.com/p/open-ehr-gen-framework/downloads/list -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130621/6ca5913c/attachment.html
Open EHRGen Guide in English!
Dear friends and colleagues, I'm very happy to announce that we have published a guide to our EHRGen system, now translated to english! This implied a great effort, but I believe it was worth it. I kindly ask you to review the document and drop me a line if you notice any errors or something that is not clear, or propose improvements to the doc, etc. All the help will be appreciated. As any open source project, all of you who want to contribute with code, testing or documentation will be very welcome. Of course, I'll be available for any questions you have. Thank you and enjoy! Download the framework guide from the google code site: https://code.google.com/p/open-ehr-gen-framework/downloads/list -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130619/1048a163/attachment.html
Archetypes on CKM encoding problem (UTF-8 with BOM)
Hi all, I've downloaded a couple of archetypes from the CKM to start playing around with ADL on PHP :) I've noticed those archetypes contain the BOM (byte order mark), the weird characters at the beginning of the ADL. Shouldn't the ADL files be UTF-8 without BOM? [0] = ???archetype (adl_version=1.4) [1] = openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.apgar.v1[0] = ???archetype (adl_version=1.4) [1] = openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.body_mass_index.v1[0] = ???archetype (adl_version=1.4) [1] = openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.body_weight.v1 For testing purposes I removed the BOM using Notepad++ Encoding change to UTF-8 Without BOM. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130523/f6293b49/attachment.html
About openEHR BMM
Hi Thomas, having a small spec would be great, thanks! BTW, does anyone use XML representation of UML diagrams to process class models? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:09:15 +0100 From: thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: About openEHR BMM On 30/04/2013 18:30, Diego Bosc? wrote: I think Thomas created it from scratch. There is a page on the wiki discussing it (http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/dev/Machine-readable+model+representations+of+openEHR), but we studied mostly to the bmm files included on the archetype workbench in order to understand it. yep. That link explains why I did it. Simple summary: XMI is a horror and hardly works between tools that implement it (and there is no hope of hand-writing an XMI schema). And Ecore was broken for generic types. We might converge to some Ecore/EMF format at some point, but right now, BMM is a nice lightweight format, and works ok. Michael van der Zel at Results4Care put together a great little plug-in for Enterprise Architect that traverses a UML model in memory and pumps out a BMM schema for it. So now we have a nice way of having a primary UML model expression and a generated tool-consumable format (BMM schemas), which will help tool chains components to communicate - right now the ADL workbench and now LinkEHR can consume it. The converter is pretty good right now, but David Moner's group has obviously found a few more bugs than I found, which is good - hopefully we can converge on a very tight version of the EA converter soon. Then the same thing can be done with openEHR, 13606, any other model in EA, which means we have a way of representing a RM in UML, and driving archetype tools from that. I'm just putting together a GitHub repo now for it on which I'll post a spec, the class models I use (in UML) and pointers to every implementation we can find. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130501/ea76cb21/attachment.html
About openEHR BMM
Yep XMI is tough... A short time ago I thought about adapting the .DIA * XML format to represent UML diagrams (cleaning the graphic part and leaving only the structure of the model). My idea was to do some code generation targeting Java/Groovy from the DIA diagrams directly to simplify my development process. This can be easily done using something like FreeMarker **. The problems are: 1. .DIA is not a standard and is more for graphical information than information structures and 2. there is no clear standard to represent UML class models in XML. E.g. this can be used to generate reference implementations of any openEHR spec targeting multiple programming languages, so when specs change, we can generate our implementations automatically. Obviously this strongly depends on the tools used to create UML diagrams, and I suspect the tools currently used are propietary as the current tools/formats for spec documentation. * DIA is an open source UML modeller I use a lot, and it's output format is XML: https://live.gnome.org/Dia** http://freemarker.sourceforge.net -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: yampeku at gmail.com Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 16:02:21 +0200 Subject: Re: About openEHR BMM To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org We don't. I had a look to XMI back in the day, but discarded it for being a mess (too vendor specific). On the other hand generating a clean XMI from archetypes could be a good idea. 2013/5/1 pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com: Hi Thomas, having a small spec would be great, thanks! BTW, does anyone use XML representation of UML diagrams to process class models? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:09:15 +0100 From: thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: About openEHR BMM On 30/04/2013 18:30, Diego Bosc? wrote: I think Thomas created it from scratch. There is a page on the wiki discussing it (http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/dev/Machine-readable+model+representations+of+openEHR), but we studied mostly to the bmm files included on the archetype workbench in order to understand it. yep. That link explains why I did it. Simple summary: XMI is a horror and hardly works between tools that implement it (and there is no hope of hand-writing an XMI schema). And Ecore was broken for generic types. We might converge to some Ecore/EMF format at some point, but right now, BMM is a nice lightweight format, and works ok. Michael van der Zel at Results4Care put together a great little plug-in for Enterprise Architect that traverses a UML model in memory and pumps out a BMM schema for it. So now we have a nice way of having a primary UML model expression and a generated tool-consumable format (BMM schemas), which will help tool chains components to communicate - right now the ADL workbench and now LinkEHR can consume it. The converter is pretty good right now, but David Moner's group has obviously found a few more bugs than I found, which is good - hopefully we can converge on a very tight version of the EA converter soon. Then the same thing can be done with openEHR, 13606, any other model in EA, which means we have a way of representing a RM in UML, and driving archetype tools from that. I'm just putting together a GitHub repo now for it on which I'll post a spec, the class models I use (in UML) and pointers to every implementation we can find. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130501/a77bf7da/attachment.html
About openEHR BMM
Great! BTW, it will be really useful to have multi-model tools. I was thinking if multi-model apps could be also useful, e.g. to have different persistent structures. My guess is that app can implement one canonical model (e.g. openEHR RM) and then map to other models e.g. for instance transformation and output purposes. My idea: what do you think about creating some kind of mapping language, to specify correspondences between BMM models? (e.g. using semantic mappings/relationships to tell if one class in model A is equivalent/more generic/more specific/... to other class in model B). There are many kinds of semantic correspondence between models, e.g. a class in one model can map to a property in another model, etc... The idea behind that is that using the mapping information and an input instance schema (in the canonical model), and maybe some input or cursomization from the user/designer, a complete transformation definition can be created, so automatic transformation from an instance in the canonical model to some output model (13606, CDA, ...) can be done. Is this idea to crazy or do you think it can be useful to have something like that?Anyone is working on something like that? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 16:07:08 +0100 From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: About openEHR BMM On 01/05/2013 14:48, pablo pazos wrote: Hi Thomas, having a small spec would be great, thanks! BTW, does anyone use XML representation of UML diagrams to process class models? wait time = 5 days - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130501/1c5ce1f6/attachment.html
About openEHR BMM
Hi David, I saw the BMM format mentioned on previous threads, but I really don't know what it is or where it came from. Searching on the web, BMM is almost unknown (there is the OMG Business Motivation Model), so I think the BMM is something developed by Ocean or by CIMI partners (?). Anyone knows where is the spec of the format? It would be nice to understand what BMM in order to participate on these threads. Thanks! -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: dam...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:33:08 +0200 Subject: About openEHR BMM To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Hello all, We have just implemented the support of Basic Meta Model files (BMM) in LinkEHR Editor as a format to import new reference models into the tool. First of all, I think that it is necessary to clarify some erroneous ideas or misunderstandings about LinkEHR that have been recently published. Until now, LinkEHR used XML Schema as an input format to define reference models. It is analyzed to create the internal information structures needed to edit archetypes based in that model. Internally, LinkEHR follows a pure implementation of the AOM 1.4 model so that the only limits of the tool are what can be expressed as an archetype. The decision to support XML Schema as an input format is based on the fact that many reference models are only or normatively expressed in that way (for example HL7 CDA, HL7 CCD or CDISC ODM). This has nothing to do with the discussion about the expressiveness of the XML Schema language, but just a solution needed to support some daily used and well established models such as CDA. That said, we decided to implement the support of BMM definitions as an additional input format to XML Schema, in order to extend the possibilities of the tool. That implementation took around three days and the only problems came from the interpretation of the BMM format. Some doubts arose and we want to share them for discussion. - Schema identification. This is just a curiosity. The BMM identification includes the following information. It is curious that here the RM release is required as part of the identification schema (which is completely logical), but it is not used for the generation of the archetype identifier or archetype header to make its localization safer, as we have requested some time in the past (http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/2011-April/005943.html). rm_publisher = openehr schema_name = rmrm_release = 1.0.2 - Order of the properties. It is not specified if there is an order of appearance of all reserved words and sections of the BMM. Depending on this, the implementation strategy of the parser varies. Is the order relevant? We assumed that it is relevant for the header sections, but it is not at the definition of the classes. - Cardinality property of Single attributes. Testing the CIMI BMM we have found several places where a P_BMM_SINGLE_PROPERTY had a cardinality property defined. We interpreted that as an error, since a monovalued attribute has no cardinality. - Is_abstract as string. Also at the CIMI model we found several definitions as is_abstract = True. We interpreted it as an error since it should be a boolean value without double quotes. - Definition of generic properties. They are defined by using the P_BMM_GENERIC_PROPERTY reserved word. What it is not clear is if those properties can be SINGLE or CONTAINER ones. In other words, is it possible to define a container attribute(with its cardinality) of the type GENERIC_PROPERTY? - Generic_parameters property of P_BMM_GENERIC_PROPERTY should be a list. Since a generic class can be defined to support one or more parameters, the generic_parameters used when that class is called should be defined as a list of strings. Currently, all examples define it as a single string value. - Need of visualization information. There are two properties defined related to visualization of the model. The archetype_data_value_parent_class property is defined at the documentation as a base class from the Reference Model whose descendants are considered to be 'logical data types [...] is only used to help tooling provide more intelligent display. The archetype_visualise_descendants_of property is used to designate a class whose descendants should be made visible in tree and grid renderings of the archetype definition. In order to repeat some of the problems of existing model representation, such as XMI, we should avoid polluting the pure RM definition from visualization or user-oriented metainformation. At the end that only complicates the BMM format. The representation of that metainformation should not be part of the BMM requirements. We have uploaded the JavaCC specification of the BMM grammar to the openEHR wiki: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/dev/BMM+grammar+and+parsers Feel free to use or modify
Template designer download asks for login info
Hi, I'm trying to download de template designer from here * but is impossible, maybe there's an alternative site for download? Thanks. * http://wiki.oceaninformatics.com/confluence/display/TTL/Template+Designer+Releases -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130417/13a3bc3d/attachment.html
openEHR webinar in spanish
Hi all, Next friday I'll give a talk at the Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Argentina, about openEHR.This will be transmitted and recorded online.More info: http://www.hospitalitaliano.org.ar/archivos/noticias_archivos/11/Ateneosnews/11_wabr13.html Anyone knows how can I get this published on the openEHR.org events page? Thanks. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130417/9ec5a649/attachment.html
Template designer download asks for login info
I'm sure I downloaded a version of the TD a month (or so) ago from there without any problems.I wanted to show the last version of the tool in my talk this friday, please let me know when the download will be available again. Thanks a lot! -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:23:59 +0100 Subject: Re: Template designer download asks for login info To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Hi Pablo, We are looking into this. There is a new internal release being worked on which is normally 'private' but the betas have generally been open access, so I am not sure what has happened. Ian On 17 April 2013 16:16, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm trying to download de template designer from here * but is impossible, maybe there's an alternative site for download? Thanks. * http://wiki.oceaninformatics.com/confluence/display/TTL/Template+Designer+Releases -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- Dr Ian McNicoll office +44 (0)1536 414 994 fax +44 (0)1536 516317 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK Director openEHR Foundation www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland BCS Primary Health Care www.phcsg.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130417/b2569f28/attachment.html
Guideline Definition Language (GDL) specifications and GDL-editor release announcement
Hi Rong, great work! Congratulations to you and your team, this will give more power to the openEHR tool stack, and can help big time to show how to use openEHR archetyped data. Thanks for sharing! -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: rong.c...@cambio.se To: openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org; openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-implementers at lists.openehr.org Subject: Guideline Definition Language (GDL) specifications and GDL-editor release announcement Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:27:27 + Dear all, We are pleased to announce the immediate availability of the design specifications of Guideline Definition Language (GDL) and its reference implementation under open source software licenses. GDL is formal language designed to express and to share Clinical Decision Support rules across language and technical barriers by leveraging openEHR designs. CDS rules in GDL format is agnostic to natural languages, reference terminologies and rules engine languages. There are considerable synergies in the development of clinical models and CDS rules. Semantically well-defined clinical models can provide reliable means of input and output of the rules. On the other hand, experiences from CDS rules development can lead to improvements of the clinical models as well as increased motivations to adopt structured and standardized clinical models. Reusing existing high-quality clinical models in the form of archetypes would hopefully increase the productivity in authoring and maintaining clinical rules. Please note that GDL is still in development. We aim to submit the GDL specifications for review in openEHR in the near future. We look forward to the community?s feedback to further improve the specifications. Some important links from this release: 1. GDL Specifications (v.90) 2. GDL Editor 3. GDL sample files 4. GDL Reference Implementation Project Rong Chen On behalf of the Informatics Team, Cambio Healthcare Systems, Sweden Rong Chen, MD, PhD CMIO, Director of Health Informatics +46 8 691 49 81 Cambio+ Healthcare Systems AB Stockholm: Ringv?gen 100. SE-118 60 Stockholm Vx: +46 8 691 49 00 | Fax: +46 8 691 49 99 Link?ping: Brigadgatan 14. SE-587 58 Link?ping Vx: +46 13 20 03 00 | Fax: +46 13 20 03 99 Epost: info at cambio.se | Hemsida:www.cambio.se ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130313/e122f68f/attachment.html -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 146 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130313/e122f68f/attachment.png
Questions about commit and AUDIT_DETAILS
Hi Sam, reading more about this, it seems FEEDER_AUDIT_DETAILS is more for copying stuff from non-openEHR systems,but from your words I tend to think it can be used also as an audit to copy stuff from openEHR systems. In both cases,the use case for creating FEEDER_AUDIT_DETAILS might be when importing records from legacy systems. Is that correct? In the other hand, I haven't still a clear idea of what is considered the *same system* or *same domain* andwhat should be the criteria to set a limit for the commit use case. As I stated on my previous email (maybe it's not so clear),one system could be considered inside or outside the same domain of the EHR Server (where stuff sould be committed),so the AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id could vary depending just on what I consider to be on the same domain or not. BTW, I don't know if this is correct, but I consider importing or copying records from another system a different use casethan commiting compositions for record sharing. May be FEEDER_AUDIT_DETAILS should be only used for copying/importingand AUDIT_DETAILS for committing. What do you think? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: sam.he...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: RE: Questions about commit and AUDIT_DETAILS Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:24:27 +0930 Hi Pablo One simple thing ? the FEEDER_AUDIT_DETAILS is there to let you record when something in this composition came from somewhere else. The AUDIT_DETAILs are what happened here. You do not need to record FEEDER_AUDIT but it can be helpful. You can log it if you want but then it is not clear to others where this came from. You need more technical input on the rest. Cheers, Sam From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of pablo pazos Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2013 10:03 AM To: openeh technical Subject: RE: Questions about commit and AUDIT_DETAILS Hi guys, thanks fo your answers, Now it is more clear for me: what openEHR defines is an inter-system audit, and what I tried to do is to have an intra-system audit (between subsystems of the same system). There's only one confusion I need to clarify: isn't the FEEDER_AUDIT_DETAILS designed to record information of the source for record copying between EHR domains/environments? e.g. having FEEDER_AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id == system where the composition was first committed. If so, why the AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id is meant to record the same information? Or better said, is there any difference between FEEDER_AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id and AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id? The problem I see is we could use the word system for many purposes, and other words like domain or environment could descrive better what is inter or intra. In my case the EHR Server and the EMR apps are each one an independend system, but together they also are a system. If the communication is intra or inter system only depends of who controls each subsystem (EHR Server or the EMR apps). In any case, I need to record an audit of the commit to the EHR Server. Consider this:If there is a monolitic EMR App that has it's own composition repo (commits data to itself), it could send a copy of the compositions to the EHR Server to share the records with other systems.If the Org1 owns the EMR and the Org2 owns the EHR Server, then the system_id == EMR, but if Org2 owns an EMR2 system that commits records to the EHR Server, then for commits from EMR2 the system_id == Org2 (an environment or domain id).Is this correct from the openEHR purpose for the AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id? About the question asked by Thomas, I don't think we need to record a device id. In my case a client (i.e. an EMR App) is also a Client/Server system (my apps are all web apps). So, we have a communication architecture like this: EHR Server (server) = EHR Server (client), EMR (server) = EMR (client)EHR Server (server): server side of the EHR Server web appEHR Server (client): client side of the EHR Server, where admins manage stuff using a web GUI (web browser, device)EMR (server): server side of the EMR, storage, logic, etc.EMR (client): client side of the EMR, where end users inupt and visualize data (web browser, device)=: HTTP communication (the EHR Server (server) has communication with the EMR (server) for commit and query) I don't think the EMR (client) id (the device where the end user is accessing the EMR(server) from a browser) it's needed for audit at the application level (maybe it's needed as a low level audit for sys admins). In my case I need the id of the EMR (server) because it commits stuff to the EHR Server (server), it doesn't matter if the EMR is part of the same domain of the EHR Server or not. Also consider that both of those XXX (server) has fixed IPs, but the EMR (client) could run from any device, using dynamic IPs, but what is really needed is the id of the logged user instead of the device id
PhD thesis online: Scalability and Semantic Sustainability in Electronic Health Record Systems
Hi Erik, great news, congratulations from Uruguay! All the best for the defense (I'm sure you don't need good luck ;) -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:44:42 +0100 Subject: PhD thesis online: Scalability and Semantic Sustainability in Electronic Health Record Systems From: erik.sundv...@liu.se To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-implementers at lists.openehr.org Hi! My thesis entitled Scalability and Semantic Sustainability in Electronic Health Record Systems is now available online. It contains many openEHR-related papers and discussions (see abstract included below). Permanent link to electronic version of the thesis: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-87702 Public PhD defence will be held the 15:th of February, in Link?ping, Sweden. Faculty opponent: prof. Dipak Kalra, UCL.Temporary event-information page: http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/2013/phd/ (That page also contains a form where you have the possibility to indicate interest in online participation or in getting a recording.)Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 Abstract This work is a small contribution to the greater goal of making software systems used in healthcare more useful and sustainable. To come closer to that goal, health record data will need to be more computable and easier to exchange between systems. Interoperability refers to getting systems to work together and semantics concerns the study of meanings. If Semantic interoperability is achieved then information entered in one information system is usable in other systems and reusable for many purposes. Scalability refers to the extent to which a system can gracefully grow by adding more resources. Sustainability refers more to how to best use available limited resources. Both aspects are important. The main focus and aim of the thesis is to increase knowledge about how to support scalability and semantic sustainability. It reports explorations of how to apply aspects of the above to Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems, associated infrastructure, data structures, terminology systems, user interfaces and their mutual boundaries. Using terminology systems is one way to improve computability and comparability of data. Modern complex ontologies and terminology systems can contain hundreds of thousands of concepts that can have many kinds of relationships to multiple other concepts. This makes visualization challenging. Many visualization approaches designed to show the local neighbourhood of a single concept node do not scale well to larger sets of nodes. The interactive TermViz approach described in this thesis, is designed to aid users to navigate and comprehend the context of several nodes simultaneously. Two applications are presented where TermViz aids management of the boundary between EHR data structures and the terminology system SNOMED CT. The amount of available time from people skilled in health informatics is limited. Adequate methods and tools are required to develop, maintain and reuse health-IT solutions in a sustainable way. Multiple levels of modelling including a fixed reference model and another layer of flexible reusable ?archetypes? for domain specific data structures, is an approach with that aim used in openEHR and the ISO 13606 standard. This approach, including learning, implementing and managing it, is explored from different angles in this thesis. An architecture applying Representational State Transfer (REST) to archetype-based EHR systems, in order to address scalability, is presented. Combined with archetyping this architecture also aims at enabling a sustainable way of continuously evolving multi-vendor EHR solutions. An experimental open source implementation of it, aimed for learning and prototyping, is also presented. Manually changing database structures used for storage every time new versions of archetypes and associated data structures are needed is likely not a sustainable activity. Thus storage systems that can handle change with minimal manual interventions are desirable. Initial explorations of performance and scalability in such systems are also reported. Graphical user interfaces focused on EHR navigation, time-perspectives and highlighting of EHR content are also presented ? illustrating what can be done with computable health record data and the presented approaches. Desirable aspects of semantic sustainability have been discussed, including: sustainable use of limited resources (such as available time of skilled people), and reduction of unnecessary risks. A semantic sustainability perspective should be inspired and informed by research in complex systems theory, and should also include striving to be highly aware of when and where technical debt is being built up. Semantic
Possible bug on common_im
I've added this issue: http://www.openehr.org/issues/browse/SPECPR-90Maybe is just a typo on the specs, but I'd like to be sure. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130129/bed0e1c2/attachment.html
ADLWB 1.5.0 1826 Beta 8 exception on File Open
. Fail---EV_APPLICATION_HANDLER process_application_event_queue @10392FB48 Routine failure. Fail---EV_APPLICATION_HANDLER launch @4 0392FB48 Routine failure. Fail---GUI_APP_ROOT internal_launch_application @302A37764 (From EV_APPLICATION) Routine failure. Fail---GUI_APP_ROOT launch @2 02A37764 (From EV_APPLICATION) Routine failure. Fail---GUI_APP_ROOT make_and_launch @6 02A37764 Routine failure. Fail---GUI_APP_ROOT root's creation 02A37764 Routine failure. Exit--- -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130125/d2163f6c/attachment.html
Questions about commit and AUDIT_DETAILS
Hi all, this question is related t oa previous thread: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/2012-November/007392.html I just want to check a couple of things to validate my implementation of an openEHR Server. The definition of AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id is: Identity of the system where the change was committed. Ideally this is a machine- and human-processable identifier, but it may not be..Let's say I have a CLIENT where COMPOSITIONS are created, and a SERVER where COMPOSITIONS are committed by the CLIENT.If I understand this correctly, AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id would be the SERVER ID. If so, where can I specify the CLIENT's ID (the system that committed the COMPOSITION). This information is needed to have the complete log of the commit. In the other hand, where COMPOSITIONs are imported from the CLIENT, the FEEDER_AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id is the Identifier of the system which handled the information item, so it is the CLIENT's ID. If this is right, why do we have different definitions for X.system_id for different scenarios of sending information from a CLIENT to a SERVER (e.g. the 1st case is the SERVER's ID, on the 2nd is the CLIENT's ID). Thanks a lot. BTW, after the validation of my implementation, I'll release the code under Apache 2.0 License. so everyone will be welcome to contribute. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130123/856d02d7/attachment.html
Questions about commit and AUDIT_DETAILS
Hi Bert / Sam, Thanks for your answers. The idea is that the new COMPOSITION will be available to the EHR SYSTEM when it arrives to the SERVER. I understand the difference between finishing a COMPOSITION (e.g. signing and setting the end time) and committing it to be available to the system (e.g. other CLIENTs could access the new COMPOSITION). I agree with Bert that AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id should be the system on which the author is working/committing, normally not the server., but IMO this is the opposite to the current definition of that field. Moreover, if that field is set to the SERVER's ID it will be redundant, because the SERVER knows that the COMPOSITION was committed to itself, but what doesn't knows is the ID of the system where the COMSPOTION was authored (e.g. the SERVER could identify the CLIENT by it's IP, but 1. IP's change, 2. there could be a middleware so the IP received by the SERVER could not be the IP of the CLIENT). What do you think? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130123/8885e0bd/attachment.html
Questions about commit and AUDIT_DETAILS
Hi Thomas, The original idea was that a logical EHR service id would be used. A 'client id' is likely to be meaningless and untrackable. The id is only useful if it is relatively permanent, and future information requests can be made to that logical EHR system. It would also be the id of the system that other users who could see this information were using, and where medico-legal investigations take place. I think that depends on the architecture of each system. Let me explain my architecture design: One EHR Server: handles composition persistence, has commit and query services.Many EMR Systems/Apps: handles data input, commit client, query client. Functionality:The new COMPOSITIONs are available to the EHR SYSTEM when an EMR System commits it to the EHR Server.Each EMR System has a unique ID that is permanent, at least for data input. (I want to know who changes the EHR).For data visualization, a unique ID or a permanent one is not required. (login information would suffice to know who is accessing the EHR). If there is a Paediatric EMR (PEMR) and an Emergency EMR (EEMR), from the PEMR a clinician could see records committed from the EEMR, and he/she may want to know that a record was created on the Emergency System. I know this can be addressd by using EVENT_CONTEXT.location setting, but for medico-legal issues it will be necessary to have track of the record from the authoring system to the persistent storage, IMO that should be done using audit trail data from AUDIT_DETAILS (I think that's the role of AUDIT_DETAILS in the IM). What do you think? In a more cloud-based world, it might not seem so clear, because numerous organisations might be committing to a physical service that supports multi-tenanting. I'm thinking this to be a mini cloud, but only for one organization. However, in either case, it should be something like a domain name of an EHR service that is understood to be the legal EHR repository facility of the organisation in which the clinician works. Considering the architecture and funcionalities (services) above, you understand as domain name of an EHR service as the EHR SERVER, the EMR CLIENTs, or the whole system (one EHR SERVER, many EMR Systems)? There might be an argument for having another field for 'client device type' (e.g. phone, iPad etc). I'm not on device area yet :) Thanks,Pablo. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130123/4ffeeaa7/attachment.html
Problem with specialization using the Archetype Editor
Hi Peter, I've uploaded here a set of screenshots explaining what I've done. You'll see in the 3rd image the weird ADL. This was an empty copy of the parent (1st 2nd images), it doesn't had any nodes on the ACTIVITY description and I added one ELEMENT. Trying to reproduce the same behaviour on the Archetype Editor, I got another structure and cannot reproduce the first weird specialization (4th image). Here are the screenshots:https://plus.google.com/109540968085207927247/posts/er5QzBkc5Mt Just for clarification: * I'm using AE 2.2.779* In all cases I do: File Specialize when editing the parent archetype (images 1 2)* I asked for this I think it would be better if the AE copies the parents nodes into the specialized archetype when the AE user clicks on File Specialize, of course, only when the ADL version is 1.4 because of what I got the first time I specialize the parent (image 3). About validation, it takes a lot of time to do something manually, then validate - fix - validate - fix again ... that time could be saved using just the AE. BTW: I found a possible bug when editing scpeialized archetype on image 4, if I put a constraint occurrences 0..0 on the DV_QUANTITY node, the ADL still says 0..1. I'll update my AE to the new version to see if this still happen. Just a question about specialization: is there a specialization level constraint? the AE doesn't allow to make an specialization from an specialization (3rd level of specialization). Thanks a lot! -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez www.cabolabs.com Subject: Re: Problem with specialization using the Archetype Editor From: peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:33:32 +1100 To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org pablo pazos wrote: I think it would be better if the AE copies the parents nodes into the specialized archetype when the AE user clicks on File Specialize, of course, only when the ADL version is 1.4. Manual copying is error prone. What do you think? I'm not sure, but I think that when you upload a specialised archetype to CKM it validates it against the parent. You can also use ADL Workbench to validate it. Nonetheless, that's a nice suggestion, Pablo. It would need to be a new menu item, since File | Specialise already does something (i.e., it creates a specialisation of the specialisation). Maybe File | Update Specialisation? It would take a while to implement something like that, however, because we'd have to make sure it handled everything properly. Even then, I'm sure that corner cases would remain where the specialised archetypes got out of step. ADL 1.5 is the only real solution. I'd rather put that effort into moving to ADL 1.5. Peter ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130116/0a6a8378/attachment.html
csingleattribute and existence
Hi Bert, it always helps me to make correspondences between the AOM and UML class models (they are basically the same thing). If you look at this: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/download/attachments/196630/openehr_entry_uml.jpg?version=1modificationDate=1193397393000You'll note the [0..1] and [1] on attributes, that's the existence, and the occurrence is the cardinality on relationships (that's for relationships that are no collections, i.e. single_attributes) (e.g. 0..1 in the ACTION.instruction_details relationship with INSTRUCTION_DETAILS). Also, CMultipleAttribute.cardinality for collection attributes is the cardinality on UML relationships like INSTRUCTION.activities or ENTRY.other_participations. Hope that helps. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 16:51:00 +0100 From: bert.verhees at rosa.nl To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: csingleattribute and existence Excuse me the following question, maybe I am just looking over the answer all the time What is the use of both together existence and occurences in case of a CSingleAtttribute. And what if both have conflicting information? For example, existence gives REQUIRED and occurrences gives minOccurs=0 Thanks for a short answer Bert ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130110/2f19ef1b/attachment.html
Problem with specialization using the Archetype Editor
Hi all! I'm testing archetype specialization using the AE, but I can't find a way to redefine a constraint of the parent archetype inside the specialized one.The problem is that the AE doesn't show the nodes of the parent archetype on the specialized one. Is this a bug or there is some functionality somewhere to redefine parent's constraints? Thanks! -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130110/4c376d2e/attachment.html
Problem with specialization using the Archetype Editor
Hi Peter! Subject: Re: Problem with specialization using the Archetype Editor From: peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:38:51 +1100 To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org pablo pazos wrote: I'm testing archetype specialization using the AE, but I can't find a way to redefine a constraint of the parent archetype inside the specialized one. The problem is that the AE doesn't show the nodes of the parent archetype on the specialized one. Hi Pablo, AE is currently still stuck on ADL 1.4, so it doesn't support differential archetypes as defined in ADL 1.5. Therefore, when you work on a specialised archetype in AE, you will see the parent's nodes only if they were copied from the parent archetype. This works okay (more or less) as long as the specialised archetype was created when work on the parent archetype had already been completed. On creating the specialised archetype, everything is copied from the parent. Where it fails, however, is that if there have been further modifications to the parent archetype, after the specialised archetype was created, the new changes don't magically appear in the specialised archetype: someone has to copy those changes manually from the parent. I think it would be better if the AE copies the parents nodes into the specialized archetype when the AE user clicks on File Specialize, of course, only when the ADL version is 1.4.Manual copying is error prone. What do you think? This is a maintenance problem. Fixing this is one of the main benefits of ADL 1.5. By the way, Pablo, I think you mentioned recently that you were still using AE 2.2.779. There have been a lot of improvements to how AE handles specialisation since then, so I recommend that you install the latest release. (Although it won't fix problems intrinsic to ADL 1.4, of course.) I have that update in my TODO list :) it is very kind of you to remember that, thank you. Peter ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130110/6c20ad48/attachment.html
Improvement to specify more than one archetype on ACTIVITY.arction_archetype_id [Archetype Editor]
Hi Ian, I agree for general use archetypes, like the ones published on the CKM, this may constraint more that is needed. But for us that build systems things like these help us building spec-compliant archetypes to test our systems. With this functionality in particular I need to test an UI that can show a form for each action_archetype_id on the activity to record the correspondent action. I know I can edit the ADL by hand, but that's a practice I try to avoid since it's error prone. This AE constraint (and others, e.g. couldn't create COMPOSITION archetypes without slots i.e. the complete structure defined on the same archetype, or the imposibility of add constraints to ISM_TRANSITION.transition) makes testing a little difficult for us (of course these are drops in a sea of things to test on an openEHR system). Just thinking out loud, if such functionalities could be enabled in the AE, but you're affraid that clinical modelers start to use the AE in a wrong way, maybe a developers version of the AE could help here. What do you think? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: ian.mcnic...@oceaninformatics.com Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 14:33:41 +0100 Subject: Re: Improvement to specify more than one archetype on ACTIVITY.arction_archetype_id [Archetype Editor] To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Hi Pablo, This seems sensible but, to be honest, I have never used this constraint feature in any real-world applications. My experience has been to leave most of these options open as it can be very difficult to predict appropriate future matching archetypes. Ian On 5 January 2013 20:09, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote: Hi all, When editing an INSTRUCTION archetype, setting the action_archetype_id attribute of an ACTIVITY, the AE only gives the possibility of selecting one archetype, but this should support more than one archetype using regexes as said on the specs (ehr_im.pdf setion 8.3.7). A solution could be to support the selection of more than one action archetype (using the [...] button, see screen capture here: https://plus.google.com/109540968085207927247/posts/f33Hs2rHoto) and creating a regex from the selected archetypes like archid1|archid2|archid3 What do you think? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- Dr Ian McNicoll office +44 (0)1536 414 994 fax +44 (0)1536 516317 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK Director openEHR Foundation www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland BCS Primary Health Care www.phcsg.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130106/05e366d3/attachment-0001.html
Improvement suggestion to CKM Search
Hi Sebastian, Search suggestions are indeed a great feature for enhancing user experience!I'm glad to help :) -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 11:12:39 +0100 From: sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Improvement suggestion to CKM Search Hi Pablo, Thanks for the suggestion. We actually used Levensthein in CKM's predessor tool (the Archeype Finder). It required some finetuning to find good matches, but then worked quite nicely. Completely different technology now, but it may indeed be worth enabling something like this again. It may be possible to get some suggestions on possible matches (Did you mean Glasgow?) I need to check out the technical constraints a bit, but thank you again for your suggestion Cheers Sebastian On 03.01.2013 22:34, pablo pazos wrote: Hi all, A couple of minutes ago I found the search in the CKM does an exact string matching search. I would suggest to make a search based on match weight using something like Levenshtein distance that is more typo proof. (I typed Glasglow instead of Glasgow :) -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- Dr. Sebastian Garde Dr. sc. hum., Dipl.-Inform. Med, FACHI Senior Developer Ocean Informatics Skype: gardeseb ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130105/bd379f15/attachment.html
Improvement to specify more than one archetype on ACTIVITY.arction_archetype_id [Archetype Editor]
Hi all, When editing an INSTRUCTION archetype, setting the action_archetype_id attribute of an ACTIVITY, the AE only gives the possibility of selecting one archetype, but this should support more than one archetype using regexes as said on the specs (ehr_im.pdf setion 8.3.7). A solution could be to support the selection of more than one action archetype (using the [...] button, see screen capture here: https://plus.google.com/109540968085207927247/posts/f33Hs2rHoto) and creating a regex from the selected archetypes like archid1|archid2|archid3 What do you think? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130105/11f7c850/attachment.html
Improvement suggestion to CKM Search
Hi all, A couple of minutes ago I found the search in the CKM does an exact string matching search. I would suggest to make a search based on match weight using something like Levenshtein distance that is more typo proof. (I typed Glasglow instead of Glasgow :) -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130103/8e7c6fd6/attachment.html
Problem specifying transition constraint on an ACTION pathway
Hi Peter, happy new year :) I'll create a JIRA issue for this, thanks! -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Subject: Re: Problem specifying transition constraint on an ACTION pathway From: peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:51:31 +1100 To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org pablo pazos wrote: It seems there's is a problem in the Archetype Editor when trying to specify pathway transitions on an ACTION archetype. If I select the prescribe state in the medication pathway (openEHR-EHR-ACTION-medication.v1) and check on transition allowing transitions to Suspended and Abort, the ADL is unchanged. Is this a bug? I'm using Archetype Editor v2.2.779 Beta Look the screen captures here: https://plus.google.com/109540968085207927247/posts/73jJSa8THSZ Happy new year, Pablo. Yes, it looks like a bug to me. If I save an ACTION archetype with those Suspended and Aborted boxes set, when I reopen the archetype they are not set. The same problem also happens in the latest beta release, 2.2.876. I tried this in some very old versions of Archetype Editor too. They have the same problem. So it looks like those check boxes have never worked. Peter ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130101/9d199f13/attachment.html
Problem specifying transition constraint on an ACTION pathway
Jira issue: http://www.openehr.org/issues/browse/AEPR-6 -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: pazospa...@hotmail.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: RE: Problem specifying transition constraint on an ACTION pathway Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 12:31:45 -0300 Hi Peter, happy new year :) I'll create a JIRA issue for this, thanks! -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Subject: Re: Problem specifying transition constraint on an ACTION pathway From: peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:51:31 +1100 To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org pablo pazos wrote: It seems there's is a problem in the Archetype Editor when trying to specify pathway transitions on an ACTION archetype. If I select the prescribe state in the medication pathway (openEHR-EHR-ACTION-medication.v1) and check on transition allowing transitions to Suspended and Abort, the ADL is unchanged. Is this a bug? I'm using Archetype Editor v2.2.779 Beta Look the screen captures here: https://plus.google.com/109540968085207927247/posts/73jJSa8THSZ Happy new year, Pablo. Yes, it looks like a bug to me. If I save an ACTION archetype with those Suspended and Aborted boxes set, when I reopen the archetype they are not set. The same problem also happens in the latest beta release, 2.2.876. I tried this in some very old versions of Archetype Editor too. They have the same problem. So it looks like those check boxes have never worked. Peter ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130101/94e64ee9/attachment.html
Problem specifying transition constraint on an ACTION pathway
Hi all, It seems there's is a problem in the Archetype Editor when trying to specify pathway transitions on an ACTION archetype. If I select the prescribe state in the medication pathway (openEHR-EHR-ACTION-medication.v1) and check on transition allowing transitions to Suspended and Abort, the ADL is unchanged. Is this a bug? I'm using Archetype Editor v2.2.779 Beta Look the screen captures here: https://plus.google.com/109540968085207927247/posts/73jJSa8THSZ -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121231/63164ce4/attachment.html
translating the openEHR website [From Gunnar Klein]
Hi Thomas, About openEHR.org.es, lets say it's more like a group of interest than an oficial branch of the openEHR.org site translated to spanish. That's what we have right now, but in the future we can find a way to have specific contents generated by us and oficial openEHR contents translated to spanish (and meet the requirements (?) to be an official openEHR community based on a common language instead of a country/region). BTW, openEHR.org.es is for spanish speakers, not a Spain based community. I'll try to motivate my colleagues to help translate the openEHR.org contents to spanish, and maybe form a small group of translators. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:16:29 + From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: translating the openEHR website [From Gunnar Klein] Subject: Re: translating the openEHR website - Also a localised content? From: Gunnar Klein, NTNU gunnar.klein at ntnu.no Date: 17/12/2012 16:47 To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Dear Tom and other techies, A wonderful idea with translated content and the general work flow described sounds feasible to me. However, I think it would make sense not to require the various non English language sites to follow exactly the master openEHR. Firstly, because it would make sense to launch some content in several languages before everything is translated, and in several cases I think all the content will never be translated, some of the technical stuff will be better read in original English in some countries. However, the LOCALISED openEHR web pages may also contain material that relates to national work, in particular of course as directly related to openEHR implementations. Documents may be uploaded in various languages with content that it will not always make sense to translate. Regarding the excellent Japanese initiative, I suggest they should be offered to move the content to the main site but with the openEHR.jp as a pointing entry. Such sites may be establsiehed in other countries also but I think they shall generally not have there own content but be pointers to the openEHR.org. Especially where the same language is used in several countries and continents it may be a complicated proliferation which in one sense is welcome. An offer to one person or a small group of 2-3 persons per geographical area to work directly with the openEHR international site makes sense to maintain some control over content of the foundation content. Best regards Gunnar On 17/12/2012 15:29, Thomas Beale wrote: we are trying to work out the best approach to translations of the openEHR website. The mechanism for the website itself is probably straightforward: for each language xx, we create a copy of the current website under a directory /xx/, and push this to the Github repo that contains the website or perhaps separate repos, one per language? the people who want to do the translation work clone the repo, replace the EN text with their language and upload the changes we push the changes to the main website Most URLs in the website are relative, so this should work. Clearly changes on the main website need to be reflected over time on the other websites, but we can rely on proper commit comments in the Git repo to take care of that. First question - does this seem a reasonable workflow to adopt? The second question that I can see is: what is the starting URL location? Taking Japan as an example: Shinji's group already has openEHR.jp. Currently it is their own website. However, with a translated form of the international website, would it make sense for openEHR.jp to point to www.openEHR.org/jp? If so, then the translated international website would need a prominent link back to the current openEHR.jp. OR... if they prefer to land on the current openEHR.jp, what URL should get a user to www.openEHR.org/jp
translating the openEHR website [From Gunnar Klein]
Hi Thomas, we're on early stages of community creation, diffusion of openEHR and tools building, right now collisions of domain names are not a priority. When the time arrives I think we'll manage :) -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:07:05 + From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: translating the openEHR website [From Gunnar Klein] On 18/12/2012 11:36, pablo pazos wrote: Hi Thomas, About openEHR.org.es, lets say it's more like a group of interest than an oficial branch of the openEHR.org site translated to spanish. That's what we have right now, but in the future we can find a way to have specific contents generated by us and oficial openEHR contents translated to spanish (and meet the requirements (?) to be an official openEHR community based on a common language instead of a country/region). BTW, openEHR.org.es is for spanish speakers, not a Spain based community. I understand the idea, but what would openEHR Spain do if it wants its own Spanish local website, to do with Spanish locations, legislation, companies etc? It would mean that openEHR.org.es was taken. I don't see any problem right now, but it might be worth just thinking about how domains will be organised in the future... - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121218/9141fbbd/attachment.html
ADL - syntax highlight for Notepad++
I've some problems with the openehr.org.es server, I'll fix them soon (if the guys from the hosting company help me) and add links on the wiki :) -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 18:10:00 + From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: ADL - syntax highlight for Notepad++ On 04/12/2012 16:23, pablo pazos wrote: Hi all, I've uploaded the ADL syntax highlighter for Notepad++ at the spanish openEHR portal: http://openehr.org.es/cms2/display/recursos This will be our main resource page, you are welcome to contribute. Pablo, do you want to add some links to the openEHR editor page? - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121206/e6d12d1e/attachment.html
ADL - syntax highlight for Notepad++
Hi all, I've uploaded the ADL syntax highlighter for Notepad++ at the spanish openEHR portal: http://openehr.org.es/cms2/display/recursos This will be our main resource page, you are welcome to contribute. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: pazospa...@hotmail.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: RE: ADL - syntax highlight for Notepad++ Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:38:26 -0300 The highlighter was created by Armando Prieto from Venezuela: https://plus.google.com/106112948303122664219/posts Enjoy! -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:22:58 +0200 From: bert.verh...@rosa.nl To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: FW: ADL - syntax highlight for Notepad++ I will be glad to receive it. On my website: http://www.rosa.nl/syntax_highlight.html You'll find syntax-highlighting and block-folding for Kate/KDevelop (both KDE/Linux) and for Textpad, which is my favorite Windows-text-editor. Bert On 10-08-12 01:56, pablo pazos wrote: Hi guys, One of my students developed an ADL syntax highlight for Notepad++ I cannot attach it here, drop me a line and I'll sent it to you: pablo at openehr.org.es -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: yampeku at gmail.com Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:52:04 +0200 Subject: Re: ADL - syntax highlight for Notepad++ To: openehr-technical at openehr.org I haven't heard that anyone has developed it yet, but that is a very good idea 2009/10/5 gjb gjb at crs4.it: I wonder if anyone has created themselves a syntax highlight file for use with Notepad++ http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/uk/site.htm and would be willing to share it? Gavin Brelstaff CRS4 ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- Diego Bosc? Tom?s diebosto at fis.upv.es yampeku at gmail.com Grupo IBIME Instituto ITACA - Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia Acceso B Edificio 8G Camino Vera s/n 46022 VALENCIA (Spain) ext: 75277 http://ibime.upv.es ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121204/4ca97f1f/attachment.html
Understanding how to commit contributions to an EHR Server with XML
().common_im p. 40 says VERSIONT.owner_id() extracts the uid of the owning VERSIONED_OBJECT.common_im p. 46 says the VERSIONT.uid is object_id, creating_system_id, version_tree_id.common_im p. 46 says the object_id part of the VERSIONT.uid is a copy of the uid of the container VERSIONED_OBJECT.common_im p. 53 the owner_id attribute is mentioned on VERSIONED_OBJECTT to be the EHR id. If I understand the idea: VERSION points to VERSIONED_OBJECT and VERSIONED_OBJECT points to EHR, is that right? [HKF: ] Right What do you think about leaving the name owner_id for the pointer to the EHR and object_id for the pointer to the VERSIONED_OBJECT? [HKF: ] I think the class specification is not really able to be modified but the descriptive text could be made more clear. I agree that object_id is a better term and a term I use a lot. In the case of the VERSIONED_OBJECT owner_id it needs to be generic because It is used for demographic records (repositories) as well as health records. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazosDate: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 21:27:35 +0200 Subject: Re: Understanding how to commit contributions to an EHR Server with XML From: erik.sundv...@liu.se To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Hi! A CONTRIBUTION points to the IDs of it's contained VERSIONED_OBJECTs and the VERSIONED_OBJECTs at the same time points to their related CONTRIBUTION, thus it is probably easiest to finalize them in the same transaction in most systems if they are stored/retrieved as separate objects. (You have probably already figured that out, I am just trying to avoid misunderstandings by newcomers that might be reading.) In the LiU EEE REST based approach we have added a temporary writing space called Contribution Builder where you can add/modify a collection of VERSIONED_OBJECTs until you are satisfied and then make a call to get them committed into the EHR in a combined CONTRIBUTION. Another option is of course to send a collection of VERSIONED_OBJECTs (from a client) with e.g. a bit of XML-wrapping (also including metadata for the CONTRIBUTION). We have not finished specifying and testing an XML serialization for that yet, but that could of course be done (now we use a Java-based object as collection to pass data from the Contribution Builder). I have now uploaded an old XSD (from some experiments 2010) containing definition of CONTRIBUTIONs (and some other stuff) as an attachment to http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/dev/Persistence - It should be considered as an experimental non-official pre-alpha version... (The LiU EEE REST design paper has been submitted for review, see http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/projects/Projects+Home Contact me if you need a personal login to our tiny demo-server.)Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 5:13 PM, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote:Hi all, I found there is no CONTRIBUTION XSD defined on the openEHR XDS, and if it exists, I can't commit CONTRIBUTIONs using only one XML message, because CONTRIBUTION references (using OBJECT_REF) the VERSIONs I need to commit, but each VERSION also references (by OBJECT_REF) the container CONTRIBUTION. The main problem here is: the instances of those classes (CONTRIBUTION and VERSIONCOMPOSITION) are distributed objects. So if I send 2 messages to the EHR Server, one to create the CONTRIBUTION and other to create VERSIONs, the fisrt CONTRIBUTION.versions will be empty on the server, so invalid for a while (until it's VERSIONS are committed). So, I'm beginning to suspect that I need a little protocol to be defined here. The other option is to define my own XSD for an envelope that could include both, CONTRIBUTION and it's VERSIONs. I prefer to define a protocol than new custom XSDs. Does anyone that implemented a service like this came to the same conclusion? All your comments will be of great help, thank you. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazosFrom: pazospablo at hotmail.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Understanding how to commit contributions to an EHR Server with XML Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:14:15 -0300 Hi all, I'm studying the change_control package to create a simple example of data commit to an EHR Server (to be used in a future course). I'm also reading the service examples published on the wiki (Ocean Marand EHR Services). As I understand it, when an EMR app (local) wants to commit data to an EHR Server (global/shared), all committed data (e.g. a list of VersionCompositon) should be referenced by a Contribution. Also, each VersionComposition references the container Contribution. All
openEHR members, who we are?
Hi all, I'm preparing a presentation about openEHR for an event in Argentina: http://www.hospitalitaliano.org.ar/infomed/index.php?contenido=ver_curso.phpid_curso=13164#.UKV9VORQbAN I'm wondering if there's any way to know how many openEHR members we are and from what countries. On the CKM I know there is such functionality, but is there any way to get that information from the openEHR mail lists too? BTW, I was invited by HL7 Argentina and I hope this could open new collaboration opportunities for both communities in South America. Thanks a lot. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121115/92238a4b/attachment.html
openEHR members, who we are?
Dear friends, in my previous email I asked for a functionality of the mailing lists, not for an exhaustive list of members (please read the full body of the message) I can't aggregate 1000+ emails responses one by one :) -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: pazospa...@hotmail.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-implementers at lists.openehr.org; openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org Subject: openEHR members, who we are? Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:46:36 -0300 Hi all, I'm preparing a presentation about openEHR for an event in Argentina: http://www.hospitalitaliano.org.ar/infomed/index.php?contenido=ver_curso.phpid_curso=13164#.UKV9VORQbAN I'm wondering if there's any way to know how many openEHR members we are and from what countries. On the CKM I know there is such functionality, but is there any way to get that information from the openEHR mail lists too? BTW, I was invited by HL7 Argentina and I hope this could open new collaboration opportunities for both communities in South America. Thanks a lot. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121115/67dfd320/attachment.html
Understanding how to commit contributions to an EHR Server with XML
it is at the Virtual EHR service or EHR Service layer. Attributes such as system_id and time_committed are obvious candidates to be set by the service not by the client but the RM state that these are mandatory and my most recent work provides a service operation message that excludes these from the commit contribution message type but instead has the other RM attributes necessary (e.g. change_type and description) for the service itself to build the valid RM objects to be persisted. This CONTRIBUTION_VERSION class is a potential candidate to be added to the Extract or Service models to support contribution operations. I found the same problem: the change_control objects are distributed objects, so at one moment in time some parts of an object may be on the server, some other parts on the client and other parts not yet created. This is very unclear on the specs since it lacks time based diagrams to show what objects are created at what time and when. This could be a good improvement to the specs, what do you think? I feel it is truly a high priority for us to start aligning the various implementation APIs ASAP before we get too many more candidates, at least a minimum core set of operations. I think we have enough experience to get this started, I think the process is close to being finalised so now we just need contributors. Let me know if I can help and how. I'm always open to collaboration :D Kind regards,Pablo. Heath From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of pablo pazos Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2012 3:44 AM To: openeh technical Subject: Understanding how to commit contributions to an EHR Server with XML Hi all, I'm studying the change_control package to create a simple example of data commit to an EHR Server (to be used in a future course). I'm also reading the service examples published on the wiki (Ocean Marand EHR Services). As I understand it, when an EMR app (local) wants to commit data to an EHR Server (global/shared), all committed data (e.g. a list of VersionCompositon) should be referenced by a Contribution. Also, each VersionComposition references the container Contribution. All references are managed using OBJECT_REF instances. My idea is to make the commits using XML messages (following openEHR XSDs) with only one message per commit.I don't know if I can represent both references using openEHR XML (Contribution-Version Version-Contribution). I suppose this operation [1] on the Ocean's EHR Services is resolving both references internally: void CommitContribution(HierObjectId ehrId, AuditDetails commitAudit, OriginalVersion[] versions) Another assumption on that service, is the AuditDetails has the Attestation to sign all the committed Versions (the signature for all the Versions is calculated using the same AuditDetails object). I've seen Version XML examples where the Version has a reference to a Contribution, but the referenced Contribution is a mistery for me :) (it could be really helpful if someone can share an XML example of a Contribution). Any ideas, pointers corrections are very welcome! (BTW: I don't want to implement a full version-controlled environment, just want to make a simple commit process the right way). [1] http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/Ocean+Informatics+EHR+Service+Interface -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121009/f92974e3/attachment-0001.html
Question about Composition.category
Done: http://www.openehr.org/issues/browse/SPECPR-88 -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:46:16 +0100 From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Question about Composition.category Pablo cam you please raise an issue here so we don't forget to address this? thanks - thomas On 04/10/2012 23:36, pablo pazos wrote: Hi Ian, Thanks for the answer. I think having process etc in the specs makes a little difficult to understand what values are allowed in the category field. BTW, in the Terminology.xml file, process is also present: http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/computable/terminology/terminology.xml Concept Language=en ConceptID=431 Rubric=persistent/ Concept Language=en ConceptID=432 Rubric=Composition category/ Concept Language=en ConceptID=433 Rubric=event/ Concept Language=en ConceptID=434 Rubric=process/ ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121008/15ba308f/attachment-0001.html
Understanding how to commit contributions to an EHR Server with XML
Hi all, I found there is no CONTRIBUTION XSD defined on the openEHR XDS, and if it exists, I can't commit CONTRIBUTIONs using only one XML message, because CONTRIBUTION references (using OBJECT_REF) the VERSIONs I need to commit, but each VERSION also references (by OBJECT_REF) the container CONTRIBUTION. The main problem here is: the instances of those classes (CONTRIBUTION and VERSIONCOMPOSITION) are distributed objects. So if I send 2 messages to the EHR Server, one to create the CONTRIBUTION and other to create VERSIONs, the fisrt CONTRIBUTION.versions will be empty on the server, so invalid for a while (until it's VERSIONS are committed). So, I'm beginning to suspect that I need a little protocol to be defined here. The other option is to define my own XSD for an envelope that could include both, CONTRIBUTION and it's VERSIONs. I prefer to define a protocol than new custom XSDs. Does anyone that implemented a service like this came to the same conclusion? All your comments will be of great help, thank you. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: pazospa...@hotmail.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Understanding how to commit contributions to an EHR Server with XML Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:14:15 -0300 Hi all, I'm studying the change_control package to create a simple example of data commit to an EHR Server (to be used in a future course). I'm also reading the service examples published on the wiki (Ocean Marand EHR Services). As I understand it, when an EMR app (local) wants to commit data to an EHR Server (global/shared), all committed data (e.g. a list of VersionCompositon) should be referenced by a Contribution. Also, each VersionComposition references the container Contribution. All references are managed using OBJECT_REF instances. My idea is to make the commits using XML messages (following openEHR XSDs) with only one message per commit.I don't know if I can represent both references using openEHR XML (Contribution-Version Version-Contribution). I suppose this operation [1] on the Ocean's EHR Services is resolving both references internally: void CommitContribution(HierObjectId ehrId, AuditDetails commitAudit, OriginalVersion[] versions) Another assumption on that service, is the AuditDetails has the Attestation to sign all the committed Versions (the signature for all the Versions is calculated using the same AuditDetails object). I've seen Version XML examples where the Version has a reference to a Contribution, but the referenced Contribution is a mistery for me :) (it could be really helpful if someone can share an XML example of a Contribution). Any ideas, pointers corrections are very welcome! (BTW: I don't want to implement a full version-controlled environment, just want to make a simple commit process the right way). [1] http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/Ocean+Informatics+EHR+Service+Interface -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121006/fbad13a7/attachment-0001.html
Understanding how to commit contributions to an EHR Server with XML
Hi all, I'm studying the change_control package to create a simple example of data commit to an EHR Server (to be used in a future course). I'm also reading the service examples published on the wiki (Ocean Marand EHR Services). As I understand it, when an EMR app (local) wants to commit data to an EHR Server (global/shared), all committed data (e.g. a list of VersionCompositon) should be referenced by a Contribution. Also, each VersionComposition references the container Contribution. All references are managed using OBJECT_REF instances. My idea is to make the commits using XML messages (following openEHR XSDs) with only one message per commit.I don't know if I can represent both references using openEHR XML (Contribution-Version Version-Contribution). I suppose this operation [1] on the Ocean's EHR Services is resolving both references internally: void CommitContribution(HierObjectId ehrId, AuditDetails commitAudit, OriginalVersion[] versions) Another assumption on that service, is the AuditDetails has the Attestation to sign all the committed Versions (the signature for all the Versions is calculated using the same AuditDetails object). I've seen Version XML examples where the Version has a reference to a Contribution, but the referenced Contribution is a mistery for me :) (it could be really helpful if someone can share an XML example of a Contribution). Any ideas, pointers corrections are very welcome! (BTW: I don't want to implement a full version-controlled environment, just want to make a simple commit process the right way). [1] http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/Ocean+Informatics+EHR+Service+Interface -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121005/47c0f18f/attachment.html
lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x
+1 I think you're about to hit the right spot, it seems to be very near to THE solution for interoperability reuse at a model level. Learning from the Internet approach (the biggest example of interoperability in the world, that actualy works) the multi-component or multi-layered idea seems the right idea: having a common core for layer 1, a bussiness layer with EHRs, ... seems just right. Another big advantage of this approach is the gradual implementation capability: I can implement certify a layer 1 implementation, then implement layer 2, ... -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:19:28 +0100 From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x On 03/10/2012 23:02, Thomas Beale wrote: although - it will probably come out to have multiple entry points. The 13606 model is about what makes sense in EHR Extract messages. We built and implemented a more recent version of that, using lessons from 13606 - the openEHR EHR Extract. There are undoubtedly a lot of lessons from 13606 Extract use out there (there must be because nearly everyone implements the standard by changing, so that says something!). However, other parts of openEHR are concerned with the logical semantics of in situ EHRs, not just messages travelling between systems. So I think there could be a common core, an EHR part and an EHR Extract part. Having one standard for that would be hugely useful for industry. - thomas -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121004/1284c27b/attachment-0001.html
Question about Composition.category
Hi Ian, Thanks for the answer. I think having process etc in the specs makes a little difficult to understand what values are allowed in the category field. BTW, in the Terminology.xml file, process is also present: http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/computable/terminology/terminology.xml Concept Language=en ConceptID=431 Rubric=persistent/Concept Language=en ConceptID=432 Rubric=Composition category/Concept Language=en ConceptID=433 Rubric=event/Concept Language=en ConceptID=434 Rubric=process/ -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: ian.mcnic...@oceaninformatics.com Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 00:57:24 +0100 Subject: Re: Question about Composition.category To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Hi Pablo The only current allowed values are event and persistent. I am not quite sure what process might mean in this context. This was clearly some philosophical musing when the spec was written but I have not come across a need for this when modelling so far. I have requested a change to allow a persistent composition to have a context attribute , currently disallowed. Episodic care such as hospital admission does throw up the need for persistent compositions to carry the context of the episode but persist throughout that episode. eg a problem list for the current admission. Ian Dr Ian McNicollClinical modelling consultant Ocean InformaticsMobile +44 (0) 775 209 7859Skype imcnicoll On 3 Oct 2012, at 00:00, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote: Hi all, As usual I'm reviewing the specs the openEHR terminology.I understand the event and persistent values for the Composition.category property. There is also a process value, but I don't understand the difference between event and process. The specs are not clear here: Indicates what broad category this Composition is belogs to, e.g. ?persistent? - of longitudinal validity, ?event?, ?process? etc. Any thoughts? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121004/a4203ffc/attachment.html
lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x
+1 I think you're about to hit the right spot, it seems to be very near to THE solution for interoperability reuse at a model level. Learning from the Internet approach (the biggest example of interoperability in the world, that actualy works) the multi-component or multi-layered idea seems the right idea: having a common core for layer 1, a bussiness layer with EHRs, ... seems just right. Another big advantage of this approach is the gradual implementation capability: I can implement certify a layer 1 implementation, then implement layer 2, ... -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:19:28 +0100 From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x On 03/10/2012 23:02, Thomas Beale wrote: On 13/09/2012 10:15, David Moner wrote: Hi, 2012/9/13 Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se It would be great if e.g most of the future ISO 13606 version could be a true subset of openEHR instead of the current confusing situation. This is something I discussed with Thomas some time ago, it would be one of the best harmonisation solutions, but probably with a slightly different interpretation. Since 13606 has more generic classes (eg. the generic ENTRY can represent all of OBSERVATION, EVALUATION, INSTRUCTION, ACTION), instead of 13606 being a subset of openEHR I think that openEHR should be a specialized model of 13606. Obviously this would require a deep analysis and changes of the models, but that could be the idea. I don't care about the linguistics of subset / specialisation etc, I just care about getting one model - thomas although - it will probably come out to have multiple entry points. The 13606 model is about what makes sense in EHR Extract messages. We built and implemented a more recent version of that, using lessons from 13606 - the openEHR EHR Extract. There are undoubtedly a lot of lessons from 13606 Extract use out there (there must be because nearly everyone implements the standard by changing, so that says something!). However, other parts of openEHR are concerned with the logical semantics of in situ EHRs, not just messages travelling between systems. So I think there could be a common core, an EHR part and an EHR Extract part. Having one standard for that would be hugely useful for industry. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121003/6a07e5fc/attachment.html
Question about Composition.category
Hi all, As usual I'm reviewing the specs the openEHR terminology.I understand the event and persistent values for the Composition.category property.There is also a process value, but I don't understand the difference between event and process. The specs are not clear here: Indicates what broad category this Composition is belogs to, e.g. ?persistent? - of longitudinal validity, ?event?, ?process? etc. Any thoughts? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121002/faab32a8/attachment.html
Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
Hi Ian, Peter was right, the issue was because I've installed ADLWB v1.4.1.595
in my notebook.
I downloaded the ADLWB from here:
http://wiki.oceaninformatics.com/confluence/display/TTL/ADL+Workbench+ReleasesAnd
this page lead my to the old download page:
http://wiki.oceaninformatics.com/confluence/display/TTL/ADL+Workbench
That last link is the first result when adl workbench is searched using
google. Maybe that page could be updated to link the new ADLWB download page:
http://www.openehr.org/svn/ref_impl_eiffel/TRUNK/apps/adl_workbench/doc/web/index.html
Thanks a lot.
--
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
From: ian.mcnic...@oceaninformatics.com
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 09:48:15 +0100
Subject: Re: Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org
CC: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org
Hi Pablo,
As far as I can tell this is legal ADL. It is passing the validation on the
most recent version of AWB.
From the spec..
? for partial date/times, any part of the date/time up to the month may be
missing, not just seconds and minutes as in the standard;
I am sure Thomas will be along later to tell me that I am wrong :-)
Ian
On 28 September 2012 15:43, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've created an archetype with a DvDateTime node with a partial time constraint
using the Archetype Editor.Opening the archetype with the ADL WB I get this
error message:
- compiling
openEHR-EHR-COMPOSITION.orden_de_estudio_de_laboratorio.v1 -ERROR -
line 84: invalid date/time constraint pattern; allowed patterns:
-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS, -MM-DDTHH:MM:??, -??-??T??:??:??,
-MM-DDTHH:??:XX, -MM-DDTHH:MM:XX [last cADL token =
V_ISO8601_DATE_TIME_CONSTRAINT_PATTERN]
(Parse failed) (ARCHETYPE_PARSER.parse_archetype)
The constraint looks like this:
ELEMENT[at0009] occurrences matches {0..1} matches {-- fecha esperada del
resultado
value matches {
DV_DATE_TIME matches {
value matches
{-mm-ddTHH:??:??}
}
}
}
--
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
From: ian.mcnic...@oceaninformatics.com
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:27:23 +0100
Subject: Re: Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org
CC: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org
Hi Carlos,
I have just uploaded the corrected openEHR-EHR-ITEM_TREE.medication.v1
archetype to CKM.
Ian
On 18 September 2012 09:41, Carlos Cavero Barca carlos.cavero at
atosresearch.eu wrote:
Great! Thanks Heather! I see they are slightly different than
CKM ones. I will have a look at them and let?s see.
Regards.
Carlos.
From: openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Heather
Leslie
Sent: s?bado, 15 de septiembre de 2012 15:08
To: 'For openEHR technical discussions'
Cc: For openEHR clinical discussions
Subject: RE: Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
Hi Carlos - for easy reference:
? The NEHTA Instruction -
http://dcm.nehta.org.au/ckm/OKM.html#showarchetype_1013.1.838
? The NEHTA Action -
http://dcm.nehta.org.au/ckm/OKM.html#showarchetype_1013.1.876
Regards
Heather
-Original Message-
From: openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Cavero
Barca
Sent: Friday, 14 September 2012 5:26 PM
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: RE: Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
Thanks Ian, I will wait then, I will also have a look at the
NEHTA archetypes. I will continue asking about how to include medication
properly in the clinical list.
Regards.
Carlos.
-Original Message-
From: openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Ian
McNicoll
Sent: jueves, 13 de septiembre de 2012 20:20
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: Re: Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
Hi Carlos
Welcome to openEHR. This is a known issue, not with the Workbench
Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
I'm glad to help. I thought maybe other people is downloading old WB versions. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Subject: Re: Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench From: peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 10:09:50 +1000 To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org pablo pazos wrote: Hi Ian, Peter was right, the issue was because I've installed ADLWB v1.4.1.595 in my notebook. I downloaded the ADLWB from here: http://wiki.oceaninformatics.com/confluence/display/TTL/ADL+Workbench+Releases And this page lead my to the old download page: http://wiki.oceaninformatics.com/confluence/display/TTL/ADL+Workbench That last link is the first result when adl workbench is searched using google. Maybe that page could be updated to link the new ADLWB download page: http://www.openehr.org/svn/ref_impl_eiffel/TRUNK/apps/adl_workbench/doc/web/index.html Maybe google is doing that because the proper download page (on openehr.org) has a heading of AWB Home and a title of ADL 1.5 Workbench. I guess google gets as confused by acronyms as I do ;-) I've edited the ADL Workbench page that you found on the Ocean wiki. The Current Release now links to the openehr.org download page. Thanks for pointing this out, Pablo. Peter ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121002/f1d5b6fa/attachment.html
Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
Hi all,
I've created an archetype with a DvDateTime node with a partial time constraint
using the Archetype Editor.Opening the archetype with the ADL WB I get this
error message:
- compiling
openEHR-EHR-COMPOSITION.orden_de_estudio_de_laboratorio.v1 -ERROR -
line 84: invalid date/time constraint pattern; allowed patterns:
-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS, -MM-DDTHH:MM:??, -??-??T??:??:??,
-MM-DDTHH:??:XX, -MM-DDTHH:MM:XX [last cADL token =
V_ISO8601_DATE_TIME_CONSTRAINT_PATTERN] (Parse failed)
(ARCHETYPE_PARSER.parse_archetype)
The constraint looks like this:
ELEMENT[at0009] occurrences matches {0..1} matches {-- fecha esperada del
resultado
value matches {
DV_DATE_TIME matches {
value matches
{-mm-ddTHH:??:??}
}
}
}
--
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
From: ian.mcnic...@oceaninformatics.com
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:27:23 +0100
Subject: Re: Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org
CC: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org
Hi Carlos,
I have just uploaded the corrected openEHR-EHR-ITEM_TREE.medication.v1
archetype to CKM.
Ian
On 18 September 2012 09:41, Carlos Cavero Barca carlos.cavero at
atosresearch.eu wrote:
Great! Thanks Heather! I see they are slightly different than
CKM ones. I will have a look at them and let?s see.
Regards.
Carlos.
From: openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Heather
Leslie
Sent: s?bado, 15 de septiembre de 2012 15:08
To: 'For openEHR technical discussions'
Cc: For openEHR clinical discussions
Subject: RE: Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
Hi Carlos - for easy reference:? The NEHTA Instruction -
http://dcm.nehta.org.au/ckm/OKM.html#showarchetype_1013.1.838
? The NEHTA Action -
http://dcm.nehta.org.au/ckm/OKM.html#showarchetype_1013.1.876
Regards Heather
-Original Message-
From: openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Cavero
Barca
Sent: Friday, 14 September 2012 5:26 PM
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: RE: Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
Thanks Ian, I will wait then, I will also have a look at the
NEHTA archetypes. I will continue asking about how to include medication
properly in the clinical list.
Regards.Carlos.
-Original Message-From: openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Ian
McNicoll
Sent: jueves, 13 de septiembre de 2012 20:20To: For openEHR technical
discussionsSubject: Re: Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
Hi Carlos Welcome to openEHR. This is a known issue, not with the Workbench
but with the archetype itself. This is pretty old and breaks a validation rule
that was not enforced properly in the Archetype Editor in the past.
I have actually fixed or worked around most of the validation errors that AWB
reports but have not had time to commit the fixes to CKM yet.As soon as I have
a proper web connect I will do so at least for that archetype.
The problem is a bit obscure for an openEHR newbie but is related to a bit of
ADL syntax that is not currently supported in the Archetype Editor but which is
required if multiple constraints of the same datatype are applied to a single
element. You should also be aware that our intention is to replace the current
CKM medication archetype with others based on the NEHTA medication archetypes.
Ian Dr Ian McNicollClinical modelling consultant Ocean Informatics Mobile +44
(0) 775 209
7859 Skype imcnicoll On 13 Sep 2012, at 12:00, Carlos Cavero Barca
carlos.cavero at atosresearch.eu wrote:
Hi all, I'm quite new in openEHR, testing last released version
of ADL
workbench I received an error (ERROR line 87 [last cADL token =
V_C_DOMAIN_TYPE]: (VACSIT) cannot add C_DV_QUANTITY object with
rm_type_name=DV_QUANTITY to singly-valued attribute value because attribute
already has child with same RM type) when I tried to load
the openEHR-HER-ITEM_TREE.medication.v1.adl (draft version). I don't know
if this is known or unknown but just in case.
If I remove from
Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
I'm getting another error in a constraint_binding:
- compiling openEHR-EHR-INSTRUCTION.estudio_laboratorio.v1
-ERROR - line 154: parse error [last dADL token = ':']line 154:
parse error [last dADL token = ':']Error in attribute value [last dADL token =
':'] (Parse failed) (ARCHETYPE_PARSER.parse_archetype)
This is the binding created by the Archetype Editor when I select LOINC from
the terminology list:
constraint_bindings = [LOINC] =items =
[ac0001] = terminology:LOINC
This is the constrainted DV_CODED_TEXT:
ELEMENT[at0006] occurrences matches {0..1} matches {-- tipo de estudio
value matches { DV_CODED_TEXT matches { defining_code
matches {[ac0001]}-- Estudios de laboratorio LOINC
} }}
--
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
From: pazospa...@hotmail.com
To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org
Subject: RE: Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:43:48 -0300
CC: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org
Hi all,
I've created an archetype with a DvDateTime node with a partial time constraint
using the Archetype Editor.Opening the archetype with the ADL WB I get this
error message:
- compiling
openEHR-EHR-COMPOSITION.orden_de_estudio_de_laboratorio.v1 -ERROR -
line 84: invalid date/time constraint pattern; allowed patterns:
-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS, -MM-DDTHH:MM:??, -??-??T??:??:??,
-MM-DDTHH:??:XX, -MM-DDTHH:MM:XX [last cADL token =
V_ISO8601_DATE_TIME_CONSTRAINT_PATTERN] (Parse failed)
(ARCHETYPE_PARSER.parse_archetype)
The constraint looks like this:
ELEMENT[at0009] occurrences matches {0..1} matches {-- fecha esperada del
resultado
value matches {
DV_DATE_TIME matches {
value matches
{-mm-ddTHH:??:??}
}
}
}
--
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
From: ian.mcnic...@oceaninformatics.com
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:27:23 +0100
Subject: Re: Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org
CC: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org
Hi Carlos,
I have just uploaded the corrected openEHR-EHR-ITEM_TREE.medication.v1
archetype to CKM.
Ian
On 18 September 2012 09:41, Carlos Cavero Barca carlos.cavero at
atosresearch.eu wrote:
Great! Thanks Heather! I see they are slightly different than
CKM ones. I will have a look at them and let?s see.
Regards.
Carlos.
From: openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Heather
Leslie
Sent: s?bado, 15 de septiembre de 2012 15:08
To: 'For openEHR technical discussions'
Cc: For openEHR clinical discussions
Subject: RE: Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
Hi Carlos - for easy reference:
? The NEHTA Instruction -
http://dcm.nehta.org.au/ckm/OKM.html#showarchetype_1013.1.838
? The NEHTA Action -
http://dcm.nehta.org.au/ckm/OKM.html#showarchetype_1013.1.876
Regards
Heather
-Original Message-
From: openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Cavero
Barca
Sent: Friday, 14 September 2012 5:26 PM
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: RE: Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
Thanks Ian, I will wait then, I will also have a look at the
NEHTA archetypes. I will continue asking about how to include medication
properly in the clinical list.
Regards.
Carlos.
-Original Message-
From: openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Ian
McNicoll
Sent: jueves, 13 de septiembre de 2012 20:20
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: Re: Issue (probably known) with ADL Workbench
Hi Carlos
Welcome to openEHR. This is a known issue, not with the Workbench but with the
archetype itself. This is pretty old and breaks a validation rule that was not
enforced properly in the Archetype Editor in the past.
I have
Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Hi Sam, I understood how to do it, what I don't understand is why previous data is redundant and not invalid/incorrect. You mentioned this on your previous message: The idea of a persistent composition is useful for information where new data ALWAYS makes previous data redundant not incorrect at the time (such as a medication list in a shared health record). Thanks a lot. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Subject: Re: Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY From: sam.he...@oceaninformatics.com Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 06:53:46 +0100 To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Hi Pablo,You need to reversion the persistent composition without the medication in it. Ideally an action showing it has been ceased should be recorded in an event composition.Cries that help?Sam Sent from my phone On 12/09/2012, at 0:07, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote: Hi Sam, What redundant data means in the context of persisten compositions? I.e. if I need to remove a medication from the medication list because the patient no longer takes that drug, as I see it the medication is invalid (not redundant) at the present moment. Please be as specific as you can, I really want to understand the difference. Thanks a lot. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:35:49 +0930 From: sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY Hi All The openEHR specification is clear about the notion of update/versioning of a composition or creating a new event. The idea of a persistent composition is useful for information where new data ALWAYS makes previous data redundant not incorrect at the time (such as a medication list in a shared health record). This is useful for allergies and other lists which have to be maintained. An event composition will relate to information at a particular time which may be collected again but does not replace the previous information. This is usually the case for most recordings. A new version of this composition will invalidate the previous version (as key data was missing or incorrect). Cheers, Sam On 10/08/2012 7:08 PM, Ian McNicoll wrote: How is the patient reporting back their exercise activity to the clinician? I think it is better to create a new Composition for each 'patient report' rather than re-versioning a single Composition. The question then is how and, how often, the patient sends a report. As an example, let's say the patient reports weekly. In that case I would generate a new event Composition for each weekly report. Perhaps you could use a CLUSTER archetype to represent both recommended exercise, and the patient reported outcome, to be used in both the INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITY and in the ACTIONs. Can you gove more information on some of the detail of the exercise recommendations and the patient reports. Ian On 9 August 2012 19:28, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote: Hi Ian, thanks for the input. I'm trying to do it by the book, obviously clinical input is essential to model things :) What do you think about the ACTION to report patient activity? Should I create a new composition every time the patient report something? or Should I version the same composition on every exercise report for the same exercise program? At first I was thinking about having one ACTIVITY and versioning COMPOSITIONs to represent states, but then ISM states came into play :D In this scenario, I could keep exercise scheduling and activation states just in the app, and commit a COMPOSITION only when the exercise is finished, so I can interpret the COMPOSTION as a finished activity/exersice on our openEHR repository (without putting an explicit state on the ACTION archetype), and as you said, changing the state of the ACTIVITY as a much higher level by a clinician. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:45:56 +0100 Subject: Re: Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Hi Pablo, Thanks for the example. It makes more sense now, although I have to say that it feels to me as if you are overloading the idea of ACTIVITY/ACTION in this scenario. My approach would have been to regard the whole exercise program as a single task modelled as an Activity, and just
Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Hi Sam, What redundant data means in the context of persisten compositions? I.e. if I need to remove a medication from the medication list because the patient no longer takes that drug, as I see it the medication is invalid (not redundant) at the present moment. Please be as specific as you can, I really want to understand the difference. Thanks a lot. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:35:49 +0930 From: sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY Hi All The openEHR specification is clear about the notion of update/versioning of a composition or creating a new event. The idea of a persistent composition is useful for information where new data ALWAYS makes previous data redundant not incorrect at the time (such as a medication list in a shared health record). This is useful for allergies and other lists which have to be maintained. An event composition will relate to information at a particular time which may be collected again but does not replace the previous information. This is usually the case for most recordings. A new version of this composition will invalidate the previous version (as key data was missing or incorrect). Cheers, Sam On 10/08/2012 7:08 PM, Ian McNicoll wrote: How is the patient reporting back their exercise activity to the clinician? I think it is better to create a new Composition for each 'patient report' rather than re-versioning a single Composition. The question then is how and, how often, the patient sends a report. As an example, let's say the patient reports weekly. In that case I would generate a new event Composition for each weekly report. Perhaps you could use a CLUSTER archetype to represent both recommended exercise, and the patient reported outcome, to be used in both the INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITY and in the ACTIONs. Can you gove more information on some of the detail of the exercise recommendations and the patient reports. Ian On 9 August 2012 19:28, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote: Hi Ian, thanks for the input. I'm trying to do it by the book, obviously clinical input is essential to model things :) What do you think about the ACTION to report patient activity? Should I create a new composition every time the patient report something? or Should I version the same composition on every exercise report for the same exercise program? At first I was thinking about having one ACTIVITY and versioning COMPOSITIONs to represent states, but then ISM states came into play :D In this scenario, I could keep exercise scheduling and activation states just in the app, and commit a COMPOSITION only when the exercise is finished, so I can interpret the COMPOSTION as a finished activity/exersice on our openEHR repository (without putting an explicit state on the ACTION archetype), and as you said, changing the state of the ACTIVITY as a much higher level by a clinician. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:45:56 +0100 Subject: Re: Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Hi Pablo, Thanks for the example. It makes more sense now, although I have to say that it feels to me as if you are overloading the idea of ACTIVITY/ACTION in this scenario. My approach would have been to regard the whole exercise program as a single task modelled as an Activity, and just to capture the patient-reported progress as part of the ACTION archetype, and only change state at a much higher-level i.e when the whole program is scheduled, starts or stops. There is nothing technically wrong with what you are suggesting, of course. I would be interested in other's thoughts - not sure if this is more appropriate for the clinical list? Ian On 9 August 2012 18:28, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote: Yes! this is really clear and has been a great help. Thanks a lot. Just to give info that may help other in the future: in our case, the instruction is a recommendation to do some exercise, and we need to know if the activity (the exercise) is completed. We consider a completed activity to be one exercise instance, e.g. one walk in the park. But the recommendation is something like walk 30 min/day for 2 weeks, so I think a good approach is to create one ACTIVITY for each day, and let the patient change the state of each day's ACTIVITY (scheduled, started
lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x
Hi Thomas, great news! and looking forward to help on the specs. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 19:19:07 -0600 From: thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org Subject: lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x for those interested, I have been spending this month with Dr Stan Huff's group at Intermountain Health in Salt lake City. I have at least a dozen potential change requests / issues for openEHR. Mostly small, but important in their way. That has come from the evidence of their systems, and our performing a cross-review during this month. The comparison has shown that we (i.e. openEHR and Intermountain) have essentially the same multi-level modelling system, with different details. Plus I have learned a lot in terms of their design philosophy and thinking. Essentially we can think of these as distilled wisdom/lessons from various incarnations of Stan's leading edge 3M/ASN.1 environment over 15 years, up to the most recent, the Qualibria system using 'CDL' (the ADL equivalent). I'll put these into the openEHR Jira SPEC-PR issue tracker for everyone to see over the next couple of weeks, plus on the mailing lists for more general things I have learned here. The new openEHR Spec programme should get up and running in the next few weeks, which will mean that people here who want to nominate for working on the various specs (i.e. working toward openEHR v2.0) should have a think about doing that. The governance details are mostly worked out, so it just needs people. I know some people feel that the specs have not been changing for too long (myself included) but on the other hand, they have stood up amazingly well over the last few years, and we have a huge amount of industry knowledge accumulated, most of which I think is captured on the PR issue tracker, and at least on the mailing lists. Also, we have a pretty decent ADL/AOM 1.5 spec, which needs community review. AQL has also been implemented a number of times and heavily used now, and has held up very well. There are things to change there, based on its use in industry. So, soon we can start on getting a new version of openEHR... it will be a great opportunity I think, to include the clinical and technical lessons available to us in the next generation platform. The community here is wide-ranging and has a huge amount of knowledge... time to use it! - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120904/d185a666/attachment-0001.html
HL7 opens up
Part of the hl7 fresh look or just common sense. Anyway,this is the right way if they want global adoption :)The internet/web is the better example of global interoperability, the key?: open standards -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: timothywayne.cook at gmail.com Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 15:02:14 -0300 Subject: HL7 opens up To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Finally: http://www.hl7.org/about/faqs/FreeIP.cfm -- Timothy Cook, MSc +55 21 94711995 MLHIM http://www.mlhim.org LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook Skype ID == timothy.cook Academic.Edu Profile: http://uff.academia.edu/TimothyCook ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120905/1dc06767/attachment.html
Should not node identifiers in runtime paths be mandatory?
Hi Thomas,
Just thinking...
Why not make node ID mandatory for all nodes?
Since this will be handled by tools, I don't see the point of having to worry
about if the node has an id or not: the tool just put some node ID on each node
and us as developers use that fact to query and process data. It seems so much
simple to have only one criteria, and we don't lose flexibility or
expresiveness.
--
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:37:02 +0100
From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com
To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org
Subject: Re: Should not node identifiers in runtime paths be mandatory?
On 14/08/2012 10:34, Seref Arikan
wrote:
Greetings,
According to adl 1.5 document on the openEHR web site (issued 25
Jan 2012), Section 5.3.6.3, the runtime paths for single valued
attributes can omit node identifer.
The example given in the document uses miles per hour and km per
hour alternatives. The thing is, if the runtime path is what is
going to be persisted (and I can't see any other practical cases),
the persisted data will have no information to mark the semantics
of the selection of an option among alternatives.
actually, this text is a bit misleading. If we have the archetype
ELEMENT[at0004] matches { -- speed limit
value matches {
QUANTITY[at0022] matches { -- miles per hour
magnitude matches {|0..55|}
property matches {velocity}
units matches {mph}
}
QUANTITY[at0023] matches { -- km per hour
magnitude matches {|0..100|}
property matches {velocity}
units matches {km/h}
}
}
}
then the data instance created from the at0022 form of the QUANTITY
will be (in dADL):
items =
[1] =
-- ELEMENT
archetype_node_id = at0004
value =
-- QUANTITY
archetype_node_id = at0022
magnitude = 25
[2] =
etc
so the path items[at0004]/value[at0022]
will choose the quantity, although items[at0004]/value
would do just as well. (Remember, the Xpath equivalents are
items[@archetype_node_id='at0004']/value[@archetype_node_id='at0022'] etc - the
[at0022] is just a shorthand selection predicate.)
The paths are not 'persisted' as such - just the data. The paths are
always derivates of the data.
In case of a query such as get me all Xs where value is expressed
as km per hour, the system can not know what which option was
used: kmph or mph, because there is not node identifier.
in this case, use the path items[at0004]/value[at0022].
- thomas
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120814/7dc4acc2/attachment.html
Should not node identifiers in runtime paths be mandatory?
Hi Thomas, thanks for the answer. (now I see the problem of doublign the number of node ids) I understood the Seref's problem as a case that could not be decided automatically by a system, i.e. when to use and when not use the nodeID to query and to get the desired node. Re-reading your response, I believe this should be part of the specs as a rule: ...in this case, use the path items[at0004]/value[at0022]..., i.e. when you have alternatives but, in the data, one of them was choosen. What do you think? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:44:53 +0100 From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Should not node identifiers in runtime paths be mandatory? On 14/08/2012 18:46, pablo pazos wrote: Hi Thomas, Just thinking... Why not make node ID mandatory for all nodes? Since this will be handled by tools, I don't see the point of having to worry about if the node has an id or not: the tool just put some node ID on each node and us as developers use that fact to query and process data. It seems so much simple to have only one criteria, and we don't lose flexibility or expresiveness. Hi Pablo, the reasons we make it optional in cases where it is not needed: there are huge numbers of chains of leaf nodes near the periphery of most models, where every attribute has only a single object value (have a look at any ELEMENT node and below in any archetype); node_ids serve absolutely no purpose in these locations, but could easily double the number of ids in the model - and for each of these, some definition has to be invented. These 'junk' definitions would confuse translators who would never be sure what has to be translated and what not. it would increase the size of most paths used in real querying, because they nearly always have things like /value/value, or /value/magnitude on the end. So it actually creates problems without solving anything (for example, it has no impact at all on Seref's problem). The rules for knowing when they are needed are simple and published, and easy to implement, so it's no problem for tools. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120814/ce4701d7/attachment.html
ADL - syntax highlight for Notepad++
The highlighter was created by Armando Prieto from Venezuela: https://plus.google.com/106112948303122664219/posts Enjoy! -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:22:58 +0200 From: bert.verh...@rosa.nl To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: FW: ADL - syntax highlight for Notepad++ I will be glad to receive it. On my website: http://www.rosa.nl/syntax_highlight.html You'll find syntax-highlighting and block-folding for Kate/KDevelop (both KDE/Linux) and for Textpad, which is my favorite Windows-text-editor. Bert On 10-08-12 01:56, pablo pazos wrote: Hi guys, One of my students developed an ADL syntax highlight for Notepad++ I cannot attach it here, drop me a line and I'll sent it to you: pablo at openehr.org.es -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: yampeku at gmail.com Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:52:04 +0200 Subject: Re: ADL - syntax highlight for Notepad++ To: openehr-technical at openehr.org I haven't heard that anyone has developed it yet, but that is a very good idea 2009/10/5 gjb gjb at crs4.it: I wonder if anyone has created themselves a syntax highlight file for use with Notepad++ http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/uk/site.htm and would be willing to share it? Gavin Brelstaff CRS4 ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- Diego Bosc? Tom?s diebosto at fis.upv.es yampeku at gmail.com Grupo IBIME Instituto ITACA - Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia Acceso B Edificio 8G Camino Vera s/n 46022 VALENCIA (Spain) ext: 75277 http://ibime.upv.es ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120810/3919df15/attachment-0001.html -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: notepad++ Armando Prieto_adl_83.xml Type: text/xml Size: 3355 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120810/3919df15/attachment-0001.xml
Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Hi Ian, It is an application for the patient (technically is a mobile web app). Data is stored in an openEHR repository, then another app (maybe an EMR or a care plan mgt system) let the clinician access the patient activity, evaluate the results, do another recommendation, I think the reporting frequency maybe daily or less (i.e. 3 times a week, once a week, etc.). Technically this could be different, e.g. if the patient doesn't have connection to the server, data is stored locally until synchronization could be done. Right now the recommendation is very simple: do this exercise/sport, for this time, with this frequency.The patient will report when he started and ended the activity,and what was the perceived effort (Borg scale). thanks a lot! -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:38:30 +0100 Subject: Re: Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org How is the patient reporting back their exercise activity to the clinician? I think it is better to create a new Composition for each 'patient report' rather than re-versioning a single Composition. The question then is how and, how often, the patient sends a report. As an example, let's say the patient reports weekly. In that case I would generate a new event Composition for each weekly report. Perhaps you could use a CLUSTER archetype to represent both recommended exercise, and the patient reported outcome, to be used in both the INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITY and in the ACTIONs. Can you gove more information on some of the detail of the exercise recommendations and the patient reports. Ian On 9 August 2012 19:28, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote: Hi Ian, thanks for the input. I'm trying to do it by the book, obviously clinical input is essential to model things :) What do you think about the ACTION to report patient activity? Should I create a new composition every time the patient report something? or Should I version the same composition on every exercise report for the same exercise program? At first I was thinking about having one ACTIVITY and versioning COMPOSITIONs to represent states, but then ISM states came into play :D In this scenario, I could keep exercise scheduling and activation states just in the app, and commit a COMPOSITION only when the exercise is finished, so I can interpret the COMPOSTION as a finished activity/exersice on our openEHR repository (without putting an explicit state on the ACTION archetype), and as you said, changing the state of the ACTIVITY as a much higher level by a clinician. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:45:56 +0100 Subject: Re: Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Hi Pablo, Thanks for the example. It makes more sense now, although I have to say that it feels to me as if you are overloading the idea of ACTIVITY/ACTION in this scenario. My approach would have been to regard the whole exercise program as a single task modelled as an Activity, and just to capture the patient-reported progress as part of the ACTION archetype, and only change state at a much higher-level i.e when the whole program is scheduled, starts or stops. There is nothing technically wrong with what you are suggesting, of course. I would be interested in other's thoughts - not sure if this is more appropriate for the clinical list? Ian On 9 August 2012 18:28, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote: Yes! this is really clear and has been a great help. Thanks a lot. Just to give info that may help other in the future: in our case, the instruction is a recommendation to do some exercise, and we need to know if the activity (the exercise) is completed. We consider a completed activity to be one exercise instance, e.g. one walk in the park. But the recommendation is something like walk 30 min/day for 2 weeks, so I think a good approach is to create one ACTIVITY for each day, and let the patient change the state of each day's ACTIVITY (scheduled, started, completed). In this case, if the day passes and the activity was never active, we'll mark it as expired. Of course, any comments about this scenario are very welcome. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter
Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Hi Thomas, I agree with that, but I think we are talking about different scenarios. I understand we can have various ACTIONs for active states (and reschedule or suspend/resume transitions). My question is: if an ACTIVITY is completed (or aborted or expired, i.e. a terminated state)is it possible or valid to start another execution cycle for that ACTIVITY instance? or,should I create another ACTIVITY instance with the same info in order to execute it? i.e. create another ACTION with state scheduled or active for the same ACTIVITY that is completed. Thanks a lot! -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:47:07 +0100 From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY On 08/08/2012 22:03, pablo pazos wrote: Hi, Just a small related question: can I continue executing ACTIONs for an ACTIVITY that has already be completed? or do I need to create another ACTIVITY with the same information in order to have another execution workflow? e.g. is this valid? - create INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITY - create ACTION (state = scheduled) - create ACTION (state = active) - create ACTION (state = completed) - create ACTION (state = scheduled) // for the same INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITY instance as the previous flow: scheduled active completed Pablo, it's completely up to what you have archetyped. If you have an ACTION who state is 'active', you can map numerous care pathway steps to that, e.g. you might map 'dispense', 'administer', 're-issue' all to the 'active' state. So that means 3 different kinds of Action that can keep occurring in time, and each time, the state machine is still in 'active' state. Even if you only map one care pathway step, say 'administer' to the active state, you can of course have numerous occurrences of administration over time. So both ways, a single ACTIVITY can lead to numberous ACTIONs. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120809/3cb7ed68/attachment.html
Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Yes! this is really clear and has been a great help. Thanks a lot. Just to give info that may help other in the future: in our case, the instruction is a recommendation to do some exercise, and we need to know if the activity (the exercise) is completed. We consider a completed activity to be one exercise instance, e.g. one walk in the park. But the recommendation is something like walk 30 min/day for 2 weeks, so I think a good approach is to create one ACTIVITY for each day, and let the patient change the state of each day's ACTIVITY (scheduled, started, completed). In this case, if the day passes and the activity was never active, we'll mark it as expired. Of course, any comments about this scenario are very welcome. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:07:31 +0100 From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY On 09/08/2012 17:44, pablo pazos wrote: Hi Thomas, I agree with that, but I think we are talking about different scenarios. I understand we can have various ACTIONs for active states (and reschedule or suspend/resume transitions). My question is: if an ACTIVITY is completed (or aborted or expired, i.e. a terminated state) is it possible or valid to start another execution cycle for that ACTIVITY instance? or, should I create another ACTIVITY instance with the same info in order to execute it? i.e. create another ACTION with state scheduled or active for the same ACTIVITY that is completed. Ah - good question (sorry, didn't read your earlier post properly!) The current model is designed is that once an ACTIVITY is completed by an ACTION putting it into a terminal state, then that's it. So for things like long term asthma medication, contraceptive pill, or any chronic condition medication, where the intent of the prescription (or hospital order) is to be more or less indefinite, with the patient just getting repeats then the ACTIVITY is always active or suspended, and never terminated. But even if it is terminated, e.g. the asthma patient gets better (it does happen!), it just means that if it has to be restarted, it will be a new order, which reflects what happens in real life. The key to this is that what is recorded (in terms of INSTRUCTION+ACTIVITY, and ACTIONs) should reflect real life of orders/prescriptions, repeats, not just the taking of the drugs themselves. hope this is clearer. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120809/4a820e21/attachment.html
Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Hi Ian, thanks for the input. I'm trying to do it by the book, obviously clinical input is essential to model things :) What do you think about the ACTION to report patient activity? Should I create a new composition every time the patient report something? orShould I version the same composition on every exercise report for the same exercise program? At first I was thinking about having one ACTIVITY and versioning COMPOSITIONs to represent states, but then ISM states came into play :D In this scenario, I could keep exercise scheduling and activation states just in the app, and commit a COMPOSITION only when the exercise is finished, so I can interpret the COMPOSTION as a finished activity/exersice on our openEHR repository (without putting an explicit state on the ACTION archetype), and as you said, changing the state of the ACTIVITY as a much higher level by a clinician. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:45:56 +0100 Subject: Re: Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Hi Pablo, Thanks for the example. It makes more sense now, although I have to say that it feels to me as if you are overloading the idea of ACTIVITY/ACTION in this scenario. My approach would have been to regard the whole exercise program as a single task modelled as an Activity, and just to capture the patient-reported progress as part of the ACTION archetype, and only change state at a much higher-level i.e when the whole program is scheduled, starts or stops. There is nothing technically wrong with what you are suggesting, of course. I would be interested in other's thoughts - not sure if this is more appropriate for the clinical list? Ian On 9 August 2012 18:28, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote: Yes! this is really clear and has been a great help. Thanks a lot. Just to give info that may help other in the future: in our case, the instruction is a recommendation to do some exercise, and we need to know if the activity (the exercise) is completed. We consider a completed activity to be one exercise instance, e.g. one walk in the park. But the recommendation is something like walk 30 min/day for 2 weeks, so I think a good approach is to create one ACTIVITY for each day, and let the patient change the state of each day's ACTIVITY (scheduled, started, completed). In this case, if the day passes and the activity was never active, we'll mark it as expired. Of course, any comments about this scenario are very welcome. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 18:07:31 +0100 From: thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY On 09/08/2012 17:44, pablo pazos wrote: Hi Thomas, I agree with that, but I think we are talking about different scenarios. I understand we can have various ACTIONs for active states (and reschedule or suspend/resume transitions). My question is: if an ACTIVITY is completed (or aborted or expired, i.e. a terminated state) is it possible or valid to start another execution cycle for that ACTIVITY instance? or, should I create another ACTIVITY instance with the same info in order to execute it? i.e. create another ACTION with state scheduled or active for the same ACTIVITY that is completed. Ah - good question (sorry, didn't read your earlier post properly!) The current model is designed is that once an ACTIVITY is completed by an ACTION putting it into a terminal state, then that's it. So for things like long term asthma medication, contraceptive pill, or any chronic condition medication, where the intent of the prescription (or hospital order) is to be more or less indefinite, with the patient just getting repeats then the ACTIVITY is always active or suspended, and never terminated. But even if it is terminated, e.g. the asthma patient gets better (it does happen!), it just means that if it has to be restarted, it will be a new order, which reflects what happens in real life. The key to this is that what is recorded (in terms of INSTRUCTION+ACTIVITY, and ACTIONs) should reflect real life of orders/prescriptions, repeats, not just the taking of the drugs themselves. hope this is clearer. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr
FW: ADL - syntax highlight for Notepad++
Hi guys, One of my students developed an ADL syntax highlight for Notepad++ I cannot attach it here, drop me a line and I'll sent it to you: pablo at openehr.org.es -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: yampeku at gmail.com Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:52:04 +0200 Subject: Re: ADL - syntax highlight for Notepad++ To: openehr-technical at openehr.org I haven't heard that anyone has developed it yet, but that is a very good idea 2009/10/5 gjb gjb at crs4.it: I wonder if anyone has created themselves a syntax highlight file for use with Notepad++ http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/uk/site.htm and would be willing to share it? Gavin Brelstaff CRS4 ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- Diego Bosc? Tom?s diebosto at fis.upv.es yampeku at gmail.com Grupo IBIME Instituto ITACA - Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia Acceso B Edificio 8G Camino Vera s/n 46022 VALENCIA (Spain) ext: 75277 http://ibime.upv.es ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120809/ead78652/attachment-0001.html
Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Hi, Just a small related question: can I continue executing ACTIONs for an ACTIVITY that has already be completed? or do I need to create another ACTIVITY with the same information in order to have another execution workflow? e.g. is this valid? - create INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITY- create ACTION (state = scheduled)- create ACTION (state = active)- create ACTION (state = completed)- create ACTION (state = scheduled) // for the same INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITY instance as the previous flow: scheduled active completed Thanks a lot! -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: pazospa...@hotmail.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: RE: Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:04:01 -0300 Hi Ian / Thomas, Thanks for the answers!, now this is very clear. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:45:03 +0100 From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY On 07/08/2012 04:43, pablo pazos wrote: Hi all, I've a simple question about commiting ACTIONs. We have this scenario: one ACTIVITY should be executed by two different ACTIONS (i.e. we have 2 ACTION archetypes). When commiting anything to a openEHR repository, it sould be enclosed by a COMPOSITION. Now, the first commit will be the INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITY, that will create a new COMPOSITION. Then, when the first ACTION instance needs to be commited for that ACTIVITY, a) should I create a new COMPOSITION? or b) should I commit a new version of the existing COMPOSITION? (the new version will have the ACTIVITY and the ACTION) Normally, each ACTION will be in its own COMPOSITION, unless the ACTION happens to be essentially simultaneous with the creation of the INSTRUCTION, i.e. the order. Apart from that circumstance, you can expect a pattern like this: time 1 COMPOSITION INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY #1 ACTIVITY #2 etc time 2 COMPOSITION ACTION [refer to e.g. ACTIVITY #1] time 3 COMPOSITION ACTION [refer to e.g. ACTIVITY #1] time 4 COMPOSITION ACTION [refer to e.g. ACTIVITY #2] etc - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120808/710f5a2f/attachment.html
Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Hi all, I've a simple question about commiting ACTIONs. We have this scenario: one ACTIVITY should be executed by two different ACTIONS (i.e. we have 2 ACTION archetypes). When commiting anything to a openEHR repository, it sould be enclosed by a COMPOSITION. Now, the first commit will be the INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITY, that will create a new COMPOSITION. Then, when the first ACTION instance needs to be commited for that ACTIVITY, a) should I create a new COMPOSITION? orb) should I commit a new version of the existing COMPOSITION? (the new version will have the ACTIVITY and the ACTION) Later an instance of the other ACTION is commited, and: a) should it be commited as a completely new COMPOSITION?, orb) should it be a version of the existing COMPOSITION that contains the previous ACTION? So we have 3 scenarios: 1) only one COMPOSITION instance with 3 versions, 2) 3 different COMPOSITIONS, 3) one COMPOSITION for the ACTIVITY and other COMPOSITION for the ACITONS (with 2 versions). All your comments are very welcome! Thanks. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120807/415fe6d7/attachment.html
Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Hi Ian / Thomas, Thanks for the answers!, now this is very clear. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:45:03 +0100 From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Commiting ACTIONs for the same INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY On 07/08/2012 04:43, pablo pazos wrote: Hi all, I've a simple question about commiting ACTIONs. We have this scenario: one ACTIVITY should be executed by two different ACTIONS (i.e. we have 2 ACTION archetypes). When commiting anything to a openEHR repository, it sould be enclosed by a COMPOSITION. Now, the first commit will be the INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITY, that will create a new COMPOSITION. Then, when the first ACTION instance needs to be commited for that ACTIVITY, a) should I create a new COMPOSITION? or b) should I commit a new version of the existing COMPOSITION? (the new version will have the ACTIVITY and the ACTION) Normally, each ACTION will be in its own COMPOSITION, unless the ACTION happens to be essentially simultaneous with the creation of the INSTRUCTION, i.e. the order. Apart from that circumstance, you can expect a pattern like this: time 1 COMPOSITION INSTRUCTION ACTIVITY #1 ACTIVITY #2 etc time 2 COMPOSITION ACTION [refer to e.g. ACTIVITY #1] time 3 COMPOSITION ACTION [refer to e.g. ACTIVITY #1] time 4 COMPOSITION ACTION [refer to e.g. ACTIVITY #2] etc - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120807/291e4c30/attachment.html
Questions about the relationship between Instruction, workflow and Action
Hi Sam / Sistine, Thanks for the answers, both were very helpful. I was checking the specs, just need to confirm a couple of points: 1. The archetyped attribute ACTION.ism_transition.current_state is not the current state of the ACTIVITY, but is the next state (the state after the transition is executed). 2. If an ACTION archetype define more than one ISM_TRANSITION, who is responsible to check what transitions could be executed from the current state of an ACTIVITY? (in your software maybe this is done querying the instruction index repository (?)) 3. From the specs (ehr_im p.65): These descriptions [ACTIVITY.description ACTION.description] are always of the same form for any given Instruction, and it is highly desirable to have the same archetype component for both.As I understand it, this means that the description structure should be the same. But what happens when the ACTION should have data related only the the ACTION executed (e.g. perceived exertion is only part of the exercise results), is this also part of the ACTIVITY description archetype? Thanks a lot!Pablo. From: sistine.barre...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: RE: Questions about the relationship between Instruction, workflow and Action Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:56:20 +0930 CC: Sistine.Barretto-Daniels at oceaninformatics.com Hi Pablo, The states that Sam has indicated are correct. The careflow_step is the bit that?s archetyped and these should be terms that clinicians use/understand to identify the steps in the clinical process ore ?careflow? (like ?plan exercise program? - ?start exercise? - ?monitor weight loss? - ?adjust exercise program?). Each of these steps in the careflow should result in a state transition in the system as they are performed and you define the mapping between the two in the archetype. You may note that the ?initial? state does not appear in the Archetype Editor. It?s begins at the concrete openEHR state of ?Planned?. This makes sense to me, from an archetyping / recording point of view where as soon as the clinician has described and recorded the Instruction of what to do, it?s essentially set to ?planned? in reality. Hope that makes sense. /:-\ Cheers,Sistine From: openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Sam Heard Sent: Thursday, 2 August 2012 2:02 AM To: For openEHR technical discussions Cc: Sistine Barretto-Daniels Subject: Re: Questions about the relationship between Instruction, workflow and Action Hi Pablo, Comments in line Sent from my phone On 01/08/2012, at 15:39, pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com wrote:Hi Sam, I'm reviving this thread :D I'm working on a project and we need to define a simple state machine, this is the way I think it should be done and it would be very nice to have you comments about this: The idea is that the 'computational' state machine is defined in the RM - initial, active, etc. you are defining the clinically relevant steps, linked to this underlying state machine. These are archetyped. The idea is to record physical activity recomended by a clinician. There is one INSTRUCTION (the recommendation) with many ACTIVITIES (each one a recommended sport or activity).We have 4 states: INITIAL, SCHEDULED, ACTIVE and COMPLETED. And there are 2 ACTIONS, one to record the scheduling of the activity and other to record the initiation and end of the activity. (Let's say these are SCHED_ACTION and INIT_END_ACTION). When a recommendation is created (INSTRUCTION and ACITIVITIES), the current state is INITIAL (that should be saved on the repository that you mentioned in your email). The action will be to 'prescribe' the exercise or plan it - something the clinician will understand. The state will be initial. Now we need to model the state machine: INITIAL --(schedule)-- SCHEDULED --(start)-- ACTIVE --(finish)-- COMPLETED. The ACTION to schedule will have the state Scheduled, to undertake the exercise with state Active and then an Action to record completing the exercise with state Completed. So, we create a ISM_TRANSITION on the SCHED_ACTION with current_state = INITIAL and careflow_step = schedule. State = Scheduled And in the INIT_END_ACTION we have 2 ISM_TRANSITIONs with curr_state = SHCEDULED and careflow_step = start, The state is Active , the crr_state is the state after the transition. and the other, curr_state = ACTIVE and careflow_step = finish. Completed The third part should be to provide the entry point to execute that ISM, so we set the SCHED_ACTION.archetypeId to each ACTIVITY.action_archetype_id, so when the INSTRUCTION is on INITIAL, only a SCHED_ACTION could be executed. And, on any ACTION execution, we update the repository with the action executed and the new state (and we keep all the actions and transitions taken so we can reproduce the process later). This is correct
FW: Questions about the relationship between Instruction, workflow and Action
Hi Sam, I'm reviving this thread :D I'm working on a project and we need to define a simple state machine, this is the way I think it should be done and it would be very nice to have you comments about this: The idea is to record physical activity recomended by a clinician. There is one INSTRUCTION (the recommendation) with many ACTIVITIES (each one a recommended sport or activity).We have 4 states: INITIAL, SCHEDULED, ACTIVE and COMPLETED. And there are 2 ACTIONS, one to record the scheduling of the activity and other to record the initiation and end of the activity. (Let's say these are SCHED_ACTION and INIT_END_ACTION). When a recommendation is created (INSTRUCTION and ACITIVITIES), the current state is INITIAL (that should be saved on the repository that you mentioned in your email). Now we need to model the state machine: INITIAL --(schedule)-- SCHEDULED --(start)-- ACTIVE --(finish)-- COMPLETED. So, we create a ISM_TRANSITION on the SCHED_ACTION with current_state = INITIAL and careflow_step = schedule.And in the INIT_END_ACTION we have 2 ISM_TRANSITIONs with curr_state = SHCEDULED and careflow_step = start, and the other, curr_state = ACTIVE and careflow_step = finish. The third part should be to provide the entry point to execute that ISM, so we set the SCHED_ACTION.archetypeId to each ACTIVITY.action_archetype_id, so when the INSTRUCTION is on INITIAL, only a SCHED_ACTION could be executed. And, on any ACTION execution, we update the repository with the action executed and the new state (and we keep all the actions and transitions taken so we can reproduce the process later). What do you think? That's the right way to do it? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: sam.he...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: RE: Questions about the relationship between Instruction, workflowand Action Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 13:09:31 +0930 Hi Pablo, The design principles are that the Instruction should remain unaltered by people basing actions on this instructions ? as the action and instructions could be disconnected at any moment. For example, the instruction (medication order) should not be changed by anyone just to give a medication etc. So the state of the instruction is carried in the record of the action (if appropriate). We have decided to name the pathway steps and attach a machine readable state to that step. This makes it much easier for clinicians to model and to see what is going on. In our openEHR repository we maintain an instruction index ? that is a pointer to all instructions and all actions that relate to that instruction ? and the current state of the instruction. You will see an archetype ACTION in the openEHR repository and the careflow_steps are archetyped to provide a name and the current state matches an openEHR code for state. This means that a careflow step being carried out will set the state to a particular machine state. Hope this helps. Cheers, Sam From: pazospa...@hotmail.com To: openehr-clinical at openehr.org; openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: Questions about the relationship between Instruction, workflow and Action Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 15:36:36 -0300Hi everyone! I'm trying to understand how to execute a state machine of a fully structured INSTRUCTION, and I have some questions and thoughts to share with you... The first issue is about archetyping an ACTION that execute and ACTIVITY of an INSTRUCTION. Modeling an ACTION, the Archetype Editor let me archetype the ACTION.ism_transition attribute, but not the ACTION.instruction_details. Both attribute classes (ISM_TRANSITION and INSTRUCTION_DETAILS) are specializations of PATHABLE, so those shouldn't be archetypable (see http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/rm/ehr_im.pdf page 53).Is this a bug in the AE or is an issue in the specs? If the ACTION.instruction_details attribute can't be archetyped in the AE, how could I know what specific structure the ACTION.instruction_details.wf_details attribute will have? Is the ACTION.instruction_details.wf_details attribute related somehow with the ACTIVITY.description attribute? The description of the ACTION.instruction_details.wf_details attribute says: condition that fired to cause this Action to be done (with actual variables substituted),What is the meaning of with actual variables substituted? This makes me think having an ACTIVITY in memory, creating an instance of an ACTION to record the execution of that ACTIVITY, copying the ACTIVITY.description structure into the ACTION.instruction_details.wf_details, and the update the correspondent fields into the wf_details with actual execution data. Does this make any sense? or I'm just to twisted :D The last one!Now only ACTIONs can change a state on the ISM, but I think
Intelligent Data Processing on Health (IDP)
It could be a nice opportunity to show something about information modelling, search and retrieval with the openEHR approach. If anyone wants to write a paper on this with me, just send me an email. For me it's also a good excuse to visit Australia for the first time. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: pazospa...@hotmail.com To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-implementers at lists.openehr.org Subject: Intelligent Data Processing on Health (IDP) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:00:51 -0300 The 29th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering Workshop onIntelligent Data Processing on Health (IDP)April 8-11, 2013, Brisbane, Australiahttp://www.icde2013.org/index.htmlHealth data, although widely and diligently collected, continue to be under-utilisedfor research and evaluation. How to make use of the enormous amount of health dataefficiently and effectively is one of fundamental issues that health researchersencounter today. Such research holds a great promise to improve the quality of patientcare, prevent potential medical errors, and reduce healthcare cost. To accomplish thisobjective, the collaborations of both practical applications and theoretical researchwill be essential. Organized in conjunction with the 29th IEEE International Conferenceon Data Engineering (ICDE 2013), the purpose of IDP??13 is to provide a forum for discussionand interaction among researchers with interests in the cutting edge issues of informationTechniques in Health.TOPICS:Papers are welcome from topics related to various data- and knowledge-based approaches inhealth domains. Research topics of interest include, but are not limited to:- Electronic Health Record Applications and Standards-Intelligent health records- Knowledge Representation and Reasoning- Clinical decision support- Health information modelling and integration- Health information retrieval, analysis, visualization and prediction- Health knowledge discovery and text mining- Ontology and semantic Web services- Security, privacy and trust in health domain- Lessons learned from health information system implementationIMPORTANT DATES:November 01, 2012 Paper Submission DeadlineDecember 10, 2012 Notification of acceptanceDecember 21, 2012 Author-registration/Final camera-ready paper dueApril 8 or 12, 2013 Workshop DaySUBMISSION INFORMATION:Each submission will be evaluated for acceptability by at least three membersof the Program Committee. Decisions about acceptance will be based on relevanceto the workshop theme, originality, potential significance, topicality and clarity.For accepted papers, we require that at least one of the submitting authors mustbe a registered participant at the ICDE 2013 Conference, and committed to attendthe IDP??13 Workshop.Submissions to the Workshop must be formatted in the IEEE camera-ready format.Submissions must not exceed 8 pages, including figures. Submissions exceeding thislimit will not be reviewed.Following the general acceptance rules of the ICDE 2013 conference, papers that, at the time of submission, are under review for or have already been published in or accepted for publication in a journal or another conference will not be accepted to the IDP??13 workshop.PROGRAM CO-CHAIRS:Chaoyi Pang, CSIRO, Australia chaoyi.pang at csiro.auHaolan Zhang, NIT, Zhejiang University, China haolan.zhang at nit.zju.edu.cnJunhu Wang, Griffith University, Australia j.wang at griffith.edu.auIntended PROGRAM COMMITTEE:Sergio Alvarez, Boston College, United StatesPhilip Azariadis, University of the Aegean, GreeceR??mi Bastide Jean-Francois Champollion University, FranceChristoph M. Friedrich University of Applied Science and Arts Dortmund, GermanyMizuho Iwaihara Waseda University, JapanStefan JablonskiUniversity of Bayreuth, GermanySebasti??n Ventura SotoUniversity of Cordoba. SpainJudy C. R. Tseng Chung Hua University, TaiwanJenny Zhang RMIT University, AustraliaGong Zhiguo University of MacauYongluan Zhou University of Southern Denmark -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos ___ openEHR-implementers mailing list openEHR-implementers at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http
Intelligent Data Processing on Health (IDP)
The 29th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering Workshop onIntelligent Data Processing on Health (IDP)April 8-11, 2013, Brisbane, Australiahttp://www.icde2013.org/index.htmlHealth data, although widely and diligently collected, continue to be under-utilisedfor research and evaluation. How to make use of the enormous amount of health dataefficiently and effectively is one of fundamental issues that health researchersencounter today. Such research holds a great promise to improve the quality of patientcare, prevent potential medical errors, and reduce healthcare cost. To accomplish thisobjective, the collaborations of both practical applications and theoretical researchwill be essential. Organized in conjunction with the 29th IEEE International Conferenceon Data Engineering (ICDE 2013), the purpose of IDP??13 is to provide a forum for discussionand interaction among researchers with interests in the cutting edge issues of informationTechniques in Health.TOPICS:Papers are welcome from topics related to various data- and knowledge-based approaches inhealth domains. Research topics of interest include, but are not limited to:- Electronic Health Record Applications and Standards-Intelligent health records- Knowledge Representation and Reasoning- Clinical decision support- Health information modelling and integration- Health information retrieval, analysis, visualization and prediction- Health knowledge discovery and text mining- Ontology and semantic Web services- Security, privacy and trust in health domain- Lessons learned from health information system implementationIMPORTANT DATES:November 01, 2012 Paper Submission DeadlineDecember 10, 2012 Notification of acceptanceDecember 21, 2012 Author-registration/Final camera-ready paper dueApril 8 or 12, 2013 Workshop DaySUBMISSION INFORMATION:Each submission will be evaluated for acceptability by at least three membersof the Program Committee. Decisions about acceptance will be based on relevanceto the workshop theme, originality, potential significance, topicality and clarity.For accepted papers, we require that at least one of the submitting authors mustbe a registered participant at the ICDE 2013 Conference, and committed to attendthe IDP??13 Workshop.Submissions to the Workshop must be formatted in the IEEE camera-ready format.Submissions must not exceed 8 pages, including figures. Submissions exceeding thislimit will not be reviewed.Following the general acceptance rules of the ICDE 2013 conference, papers that, at the time of submission, are under review for or have already been published in or accepted for publication in a journal or another conference will not be accepted to the IDP??13 workshop.PROGRAM CO-CHAIRS:Chaoyi Pang, CSIRO, Australia chaoyi.pang at csiro.auHaolan Zhang, NIT, Zhejiang University, China haolan.zhang at nit.zju.edu.cnJunhu Wang, Griffith University, Australia j.wang at griffith.edu.auIntended PROGRAM COMMITTEE:Sergio Alvarez, Boston College, United StatesPhilip Azariadis, University of the Aegean, GreeceR??mi Bastide Jean-Francois Champollion University, FranceChristoph M. Friedrich University of Applied Science and Arts Dortmund, GermanyMizuho Iwaihara Waseda University, JapanStefan JablonskiUniversity of Bayreuth, GermanySebasti??n Ventura SotoUniversity of Cordoba. SpainJudy C. R. Tseng Chung Hua University, TaiwanJenny Zhang RMIT University, AustraliaGong Zhiguo University of MacauYongluan Zhou University of Southern Denmark -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120727/58e7cf41/attachment.html
Small CKM bug
Hi, When I'm seeing an archetype without signing in, and later I sign in, the archetype view (the one I'm seeing) is not updated with the edition buttons (discussion, review, ...).When I open the archetype again, the buttons are there (I'm still logged in). -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120726/9bcecf70/attachment.html
Constraints on displaying
Hi Leysan, Archetypes are for content definition, not to define rules on field displaying on GUI. That should be part of a GUI directive, maybe inside a GUI Template. http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/impl/GUI+directives+for+visualization+templates -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:50:41 +0300 Subject: Constraints on displaying From: pirogma...@gmail.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Hello! Could you tell me, please, how can I constrain the archetype displaying (or only the one field of the archetype), according to the sex (age) of a patient? Thank you, Leysan ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120719/80f6026e/attachment.html
SMART platform and RDF
Hi Ian, It would be very nice to see openEHR collaborating in these semantic metadata models. Now I'm taking a course on semantic data integration, and it seems with a little effort on the openEHR side we can generate other models that we can query or reason over them. Recently I started to do some tests on rule definition and execution for CDS, maybe RDF + OWL + bla bla can complement openEHR in that area, since openEHR right now doesn't have a clear way of defining rules over a set of archetypes data sets (compositions, entries or extracts). Maybe when I get more immersed into RDF, RDF-S, SPARQL, etc. I can help in some way. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:19:05 +0100 Subject: SMART platform and RDF To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org There is quite a bit of interest in the UK in adapting the US-based SMART platform www.smartplatforms.org for UK use. One aspect of SMART involves the definition of a fairly simple API which serves RDF graphs of archetype like objects e.g Blood pressure, allergy. The SMART guys are aware of openEHR and have been quite support of it in the CIMI work, and I understand that they do not see the clinical content definitions underpinning the APIs as core business. It seems to me that there is an interesting possibility of using openEHR archetypes (probably templated) to define the clinical content which is to be expressed as RDF graphs. This will give a much more adaptable and extensible approach + better model governance etc. It seems to me that the key requirement is to be able to create a run-time artefact, in the same way that we create Template data schema but to output RDF rather than XSD. Is this correct and if so, does anyone have any experience with this? The other interesting aspect is that because the SMART API returns mostly ENTRY-level components, these need to be wrapped in some COMPOSITION level metadata. Does it make sense that we actually return very lean EHR Extracts? Ian -- Dr Ian McNicoll office +44 (0)1536 414 994 fax +44 (0)1536 516317 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK Director openEHR Foundation www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland BCS Primary Health Care www.phcsg.org ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120705/215e3b43/attachment.html
CKM Statistics
Hi Sebastian, Having a role to see branches would be fantastic. Right now I'm not validating the translations, I'm just seeing the activity of my students to see who made what on the CKM and evaluating the impact of the openEHR on archetype translation to spanish portuguese. Let me know if I can have the role added to my profile. Thanks a lot!Pablo. CC: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org From: sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com Subject: Re: CKM Statistics Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:48:38 +0200 To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Hi Pablo, We only show changes to the trunk in there, that is correct. Branches may be rejected or committed at any time and it is the trunk changes that count for most users.For editors, there is also a list of active branches which is what you are after in this case.This is also available for 'translation editors' which I think is the role you have taken on. We should give you that role on ckm as well then you can see this report if you like. We can also make it available to you offline. CheersSebastian(Sent from my phone.) Am 30.06.2012 um 00:24 schrieb pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com: Hi Sebastian, The RSS ad the New and Modifier archetypes seems to show only content submitted by editors, not new translation branches.It would be very nice to have all the changes to archetypes, as in the History area for each archetype, but in a list showing archetypes changed, when and by who. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:05:01 +0200 From: sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: CKM Statistics Hi Pablo, there is - in the current system - in the left hand panels there is one called New and modified Archetypes where you can set the date since the last change. A bit more comprehensively, on the Find resources tab in the center, open the advanced section and set the Last modification on or after date. In addition to the Notification options mentioned by Heather, there is also the ability to use CKM's RSS feed at http://openehr.org/knowledge/getRSS or to follow CKM on twitter at https://twitter.com/#!/openEHRCKM Hope this helps, Cheers Sebastian On 29.06.2012 03:52, Heather Leslie wrote: Hi Pablo, Just a general reminder: any archetype that is still in draft or in review is likely to change before publication, so any translation done on an archetype in this state may need to be reworked or updated once the archetype is published and the content is deemed stable. I say this as we are receiving many translations that are much appreciated, but many will need revising at some time in the future. To your specific question: ? Coming soon: the ability to see new and updated artefacts ? archetypes, templates, ref sets and release sets. This is under development as part of a significant upgrade to CKM. I?m looking at it now in our test server. However there is no current plan to include who changed them in this view, as it is available in the History as you note. ? Current functionality: you can choose to activate notifications per asset or in general via the ToolsOptionsNotifications tab ? where you can select to be notified about New or updated assets per type plus new comments to all discussions and new users. In these notifications emails, the person who changed it is noted. For example, this is the resulting standard notification that I received on an archetype update last week: Dear Heather Leslie, Archetype Nine Hole Peg Test (openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.nine_hole_peg_test.v1) has been updated by michael.braun. Log message: Changes to align with other MSFC archetypes, prior to first review round. You have received this email because you have subscribed to be notified of any changes to this archetype. You can now VIEW THE ARCHETYPE or visit the Clinical Knowledge Manager Start Page (http://openehr.org/knowledge/) Regards Heather From: openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of pablo pazos Sent: Friday
CKM Statistics
Hi Heather, I know, clinical modelling is a process and on refactoring some rework should be done (is the same with software source code). The good news are that I have an *army of translators* to spanish and portuguese (my guess is more than 20 archetypes where translated to spanish or portuguese on the CKM by my students in about two weeks ago). I hope the new statistics funcionality come out soon because registering to receive notifications on 200+ archetypes one by one is a pain in the a$$. I'm subscribed to the RSS of the CKM, but it only seem to show content submitted by editors, not new translation branches. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: heather.les...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org Subject: RE: CKM Statistics Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:52:26 +1000 Hi Pablo, Just a general reminder: any archetype that is still in draft or in review is likely to change before publication, so any translation done on an archetype in this state may need to be reworked or updated once the archetype is published and the content is deemed stable. I say this as we are receiving many translations that are much appreciated, but many will need revising at some time in the future. To your specific question:? Coming soon: the ability to see new and updated artefacts ? archetypes, templates, ref sets and release sets. This is under development as part of a significant upgrade to CKM. I?m looking at it now in our test server. However there is no current plan to include who changed them in this view, as it is available in the History as you note. ? Current functionality: you can choose to activate notifications per asset or in general via the ToolsOptionsNotifications tab ? where you can select to be notified about New or updated assets per type plus new comments to all discussions and new users. In these notifications emails, the person who changed it is noted. For example, this is the resulting standard notification that I received on an archetype update last week:Dear Heather Leslie,Archetype Nine Hole Peg Test (openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.nine_hole_peg_test.v1) has been updated by michael.braun.Log message: Changes to align with other MSFC archetypes, prior to first review round.You have received this email because you have subscribed to be notified of any changes to this archetype. You can now VIEW THE ARCHETYPE or visit the Clinical Knowledge Manager Start Page (http://openehr.org/knowledge/) Regards Heather From: openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of pablo pazos Sent: Friday, 29 June 2012 4:51 AM To: openEHR Clinical; openeh technical Subject: CKM Statistics Hi all, Just a quick question, is there any way to see recently changed archetypes and by whom, all in the same screen? I know I can go to each archetype and see the history, but there are a lot of archetypes and I can't go to each one to see if there are new changes. I need this because a lot of students on my course translated archetypes to spanish and portuguese, and I would like to evaluate the real impact of the openEHR course on archetype translation. Thanks! -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120629/c42ba8cf/attachment.html
CKM Statistics
Hi Sebastian, The RSS ad the New and Modifier archetypes seems to show only content submitted by editors, not new translation branches.It would be very nice to have all the changes to archetypes, as in the History area for each archetype, but in a list showing archetypes changed, when and by who. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:05:01 +0200 From: sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: CKM Statistics Hi Pablo, there is - in the current system - in the left hand panels there is one called New and modified Archetypes where you can set the date since the last change. A bit more comprehensively, on the Find resources tab in the center, open the advanced section and set the Last modification on or after date. In addition to the Notification options mentioned by Heather, there is also the ability to use CKM's RSS feed at http://openehr.org/knowledge/getRSS or to follow CKM on twitter at https://twitter.com/#!/openEHRCKM Hope this helps, Cheers Sebastian On 29.06.2012 03:52, Heather Leslie wrote: Hi Pablo, Just a general reminder: any archetype that is still in draft or in review is likely to change before publication, so any translation done on an archetype in this state may need to be reworked or updated once the archetype is published and the content is deemed stable. I say this as we are receiving many translations that are much appreciated, but many will need revising at some time in the future. To your specific question: ? Coming soon: the ability to see new and updated artefacts ? archetypes, templates, ref sets and release sets. This is under development as part of a significant upgrade to CKM. I?m looking at it now in our test server. However there is no current plan to include who changed them in this view, as it is available in the History as you note. ? Current functionality: you can choose to activate notifications per asset or in general via the ToolsOptionsNotifications tab ? where you can select to be notified about New or updated assets per type plus new comments to all discussions and new users. In these notifications emails, the person who changed it is noted. For example, this is the resulting standard notification that I received on an archetype update last week: Dear Heather Leslie, Archetype Nine Hole Peg Test (openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.nine_hole_peg_test.v1) has been updated by michael.braun. Log message: Changes to align with other MSFC archetypes, prior to first review round. You have received this email because you have subscribed to be notified of any changes to this archetype. You can now VIEW THE ARCHETYPE or visit the Clinical Knowledge Manager Start Page (http://openehr.org/knowledge/) Regards Heather From: openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of pablo pazos Sent: Friday, 29 June 2012 4:51 AM To: openEHR Clinical; openeh technical Subject: CKM Statistics Hi all, Just a quick question, is there any way to see recently changed archetypes and by whom, all in the same screen? I know I can go to each archetype and see the history, but there are a lot of archetypes and I can't go to each one to see if there are new changes. I need this because a lot of students on my course translated archetypes to spanish and portuguese, and I would like to evaluate the real impact of the openEHR course on archetype translation
CKM Statistics
Hi all, Just a quick question, is there any way to see recently changed archetypes and by whom, all in the same screen? I know I can go to each archetype and see the history, but there are a lot of archetypes and I can't go to each one to see if there are new changes. I need this because a lot of students on my course translated archetypes to spanish and portuguese, and I would like to evaluate the real impact of the openEHR course on archetype translation. Thanks! -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120628/0cc37af4/attachment.html
Archetype Editor bug on save after translation
Hi guys, thanks for the quick response! This bug fix will be very helpful to my students (I hope I can do a 3rd edition of the openEHR course), to engage them in archetype translation (in this course a lot of archetypes were translated to spanish using the CKM) and soon we'll have all the archetypes in the CKM translated to spanish, them I hope to engange more clinicians on clinical modelling :D BTW, I have a couple of improvement proposals to the AE that might be made with few changes. I'll start another thread for that. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Subject: Re: Archetype Editor bug on save after translation From: peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:09:10 +1000 To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Ian McNicoll wrote: I did have a go at fixing this but it turns out to be a nontrivial problem. Actually you did fix a very similar problem, Ian, in July last year. But it only fixed the primary language. The problem is still happening in different languages, such as Pablo's example. Pablo, I've created a problem report for Archetype Editor with the steps that you provided. I may get a chance to look at it in a week or two ? unless Ian beats me to it ;-) Peter ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120624/c54fac8e/attachment.html
Improvement proposals to the Archetype Editor
Hi! I have some proposals that might improve some aspects of the AE: 1. For composition archetypes - by default start on the content area instead of the context area. (some of my students have problems with this, and defined the internal structure of the composition inside the context.other_context structure, and that structure sshould be on composition.content).- allow to define sections and entries directly on the content instead of only allow slot definitions. (when prototyping complete archetypes are very useful, i.e. archetypes without slots that model complete clinical documents with only one adl file). 2. Spanish translation improvement - the translation is very poor, how can I translate the GUI terms? (Thomas told me how to do it some time ago, I can't find his instructions) 3. The AE is capable of consuming web services - is there some way to do a search on the AE GUI that consumes a search service on the CKM to find, download and edit/specialize archetypes from the CKM directly from the AE? 4. Add DV_IDENTIFIER as a type for ELEMENT.value - it's not possible to define a constraint to DV_IDENTIFIER and I think this is a valid archetypable class that can be used in many situations. Now some archetypes uses DV_TEXT or DV_CODED_TEXT to model identifiers and those should be modelled using DV_IDENTIFIER. What do you think? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120624/d34aeb8e/attachment.html
Archetype Editor bug on save after translation
Hi Peter, I'm using 2.2.779 (and all my students used the same). I don't receive an exception on the GUI (e.g. a dialog/alert windown). Steps:open an ADL file (e.g. openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem_diagnosis.v1.adl)add a new language (e.g. es-UY)change the current language to es-UYchange the first term in the terminology tabclick on save (the diskette button)you will see the * in the title bar (the * appears when a change is made but should disappear when I do the save, this doesn't happen)close the AE (it doesn't alert me of any unsaved changes)open the changed ADL in a text editoryou'll see the new language added, but in the ontology part, the chaged text (translate to es-UY) doesn't appear. Hope that helps. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Subject: Re: Archetype Editor bug on save after translation From: peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:37:30 +1000 To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org pablo pazos wrote: Several students have experienced problems using the Archetype Editor. When they add a new language to translate an archetype, then save the changes, the changes are not saved. Anyone else is experiencing this problem? Which version of Archetype Editor are they using Pablo? There's a known problem that was introduced in the version 2.2.601 beta release. The problem still exists in the latest 2.2.779 beta release. Editing the comments field could cause an InvalidCastException if the user answered yes to the question whether to replace translations. The problem has been fixed, so if this is the problem that you're running into we could do another beta release with the fix. Are you seeing this, or a different problem? Peter ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120623/27496b4a/attachment.html
Archetype Editor bug on save after translation
Hi, Several students have experienced problems using the Archetype Editor. When they add a new language to translate an archetype, then save the changes, the changes are not saved. Anyone else is experiencing this problem? Thanks! -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120622/2cf95d8a/attachment.html
An ACTION or INSTRUCTION referencing an AGEN, is it possible?
I'm correcting student papers for the openEHR course in spanish.A student has modelled oftalmologic studies for diabetic patients, with a demographic archetype of AGENT class to model all the devices used on the test. It could be very usefull to let record the device information in the ACTION archetype to say this is the device we use for this test, or at the INSTRUCTION archetype to say this is the device that should be used for the test. I'm sure some of you have solved this requirement, and I'll be very thankful if you can enlight me, because I don't see how the information model can solve this. Thanks a lot. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120617/2dd2debd/attachment.html
An ACTION or INSTRUCTION referencing an AGEN, is it possible?
Hi Heather! So the partern to follow is: if you have a demographic concept that should be part of the clinical record, extract the internal structure to a CLUSTER and create an slot to that. Is that the global solution? BTW, there's no device modelled as AGENT on the demographic archetypes, shouldn't be that archetype there with an slot to the same CLUSTER? As an example, there is openEHR-DEMOGRAPHIC-ORGANISATION.organisation.v1 and openEHR-EHR-CLUSTER.organisation.v1, so I can use the CLUSTER inside an ENTRY and inside the ORGANISATION.The problem with those archetypes is that the ORGANIZATION doesn't reference to the CLUSTER, and worst, they have different internal structures, Should I report this on the CKM? (maybe there are other demographic archetypes with the same problems).In a couple of weeks I'll have more time, if you want I can review all the problematic demographic archetypes, and propose to create CLUTERs for all the internal structures, adding a slot to that CLUSTER on those demographic archetypes. What do you think? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: heather.les...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-clinical at chime.ucl.ac.uk Subject: RE: An ACTION or INSTRUCTION referencing an AGEN, is it possible? Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 14:59:16 +1000 Hi Pablo, There is a CLUSTER.device archetype - http://www.openehr.org/knowledge/OKM.html#showarchetype_1013.1.17 - plus a CLUSTER.device_details archetype - http://www.openehr.org/knowledge/OKM.html#showarchetype_1013.1.844 - that might be of interest. These are modelled as openEHR EHR archetypes so as to be specified within the EHR itself and already used extensively within slots for many OBSERVATION archetypes eg OBS.blood_pressure. In addition, just as you are suggesting, they are intended for use within the Specific Details SLOT in the INSTRUCTION.request family of archetypes or in the Procedure Details SLOT in the ACTION.procedure archetype, as examples. Hope this is helpful Heather From: openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of pablo pazos Sent: Sunday, 17 June 2012 1:11 PM To: openehr clinical; openeh technical Subject: An ACTION or INSTRUCTION referencing an AGEN, is it possible? I'm correcting student papers for the openEHR course in spanish.A student has modelled oftalmologic studies for diabetic patients, with a demographic archetype of AGENT class to model all the devices used on the test. It could be very usefull to let record the device information in the ACTION archetype to say this is the device we use for this test, or at the INSTRUCTION archetype to say this is the device that should be used for the test. I'm sure some of you have solved this requirement, and I'll be very thankful if you can enlight me, because I don't see how the information model can solve this. Thanks a lot. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120617/e37580df/attachment.html
