Re: Terminology bindings ... again

Yes, it wasn’t part of STU3 (aka 3.0.1) but is now in the R4 spec - see http://build.fhir.org/snomedct.html#implicit Michael Sent from my iPhone On 12 Mar 2018, at 8:39 pm, Diego Boscá mailto:yamp...@gmail.com>> wrote:https://www.hl7.org/fhir/snomedct.html#implicit Interesting to know, althou

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

Interesting to know, although I don't see that as an option in latest FHIR spec https://www.hl7.org/fhir/snomedct.html#implicit 2018-03-12 11:15 GMT+01:00 : > FHIR also supports the expression language in the URL with, for example, > http://snomed.info/sct?fhir_vs=ecl/<<123464:474748=<<84848484 >

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

FHIR also supports the expression language in the URL with, for example, http://snomed.info/sct?fhir_vs=ecl/<<123464:474748=<<84848484 But note that these URIs (the above and your isa/ one below) are defined by HL7 FHIR, not SNOMED International. Technically t

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

> > > Från: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org > <mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org>] För Pablo Pazos > Skickat: den 12 mars 2018 08:28 > Till: For openEHR clinical discussions > Kopia: Openehr-Technical > Ämne: Re: Te

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

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

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

Now that I have more experience with SNOMED expressions, I like the idea of doing the binding with an expression, also I think an expression includes the single code binding, if that is correct there is no need of defining a different notation for single code binding, just use a simple expression f

RE: Terminology bindings ... again

Hi Tom, I think min_version can be problematic as certain terms can be deprecated in future versions and then this naming could be misleading. That said for SNOMED it’ll still be present in future releases just marked as inactive. For other terminologies this cannot be guaranteed. BTW SNOMED us