Re: Terminology bindings ... again

2018-03-12 Thread Michael.Lawley 
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 
> 
wrote:https://www.hl7.org/fhir/snomedct.html#implicit
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

But note that these URIs (the above and your isa/ one below) are defined by HL7 
FHIR, not SNOMED International. Technically they identify FHIR ValueSets that 
expand to the set of codes you want.

You could do a lot worse than adopting the FHIR ValueSet mechanism for binding. 
There are some excellent terminology servers out there (full disclosure, one of 
them, Ontoserver, is mine).

Michael


Sent from my iPhone

On 12 Mar 2018, at 7:00 pm, Diego Boscá 
> wrote:

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 with that in 
the future

2018-03-12 1:38 GMT+01:00 Pablo Pazos 
>:
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 formed 
by one specific concept code. Also the expression being something processable 
and very versatile, we can express complex concepts with a few codes, which 
will help on adding knowledge to the archetype and serve to a better and 
simpler CDS.

About the metadata, there should be expressed against which SNOMED release this 
expression was created. We can't be sure only with min version. I should be 
responsibility of the user to check if the expression works on a different 
version/release of SNOMED. Another metadata is if the version is a local 
extension, some countries have their own extensions.

I don't know if we need to support other terminologies (technically) and if 
doing that is useful (strategically). Terminology services can do SNOMED to 
ICD, and ICD is not clinical relevant. LOINC is useful, but there is a 
SNOMED-LOINC collaboration, so we might expect an official mapping in the 
future (https://loinc.org/collaboration/snomed-international/). IMO we should 
focus on SNOMED.

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Thomas Beale 
> wrote:
Recently we discussed terminology bindings. We probably still have not got them 
right, but we don't have a model of what we think they should be. I posted a 
quick idea of a possible more structured version:


term_bindings = <
["snomed_ct"] = <
["/data[id3]/events[id4]/data[id2]/items[id26]"] = (SIMPLE_BINDING) 
<
target =  -- Apgar score at 
1 minute
notes = <"some notes">
min_version = <"2017-02-01">
etc = <"etc">
>
["id26"] = (CONSTRAINT_BINDING) <
target = <"71388002 |Procedure| : 405815000 |Procedure device|  
=  122456005 |Laser device| , 260686004 |Method|  =  129304002 |Excision - 
action| ,405813007 |Procedure site - direct|  =  1549700l6 |Ovarian structure|">
   min_version = <"2017-04-01">
notes = <"some notes">
etc = <"etc">
>
>
>

I noted that the right hand side of a binding can be a few different things, 
each of which would be accompanied by various meta-data, including:

  *   a single concept code
  *   a single code or other id referring to an external value set in an 
external terminology (in SNOMED it is a SNOMED code; for e.g. ICD10, there is 
no standard that I know of)
  *   a composition expression that refers to a more refined concept
  *   possible a constraint expression that locally determines a value set 
intensionally, to be resolved by application to the Terminology service.

I'd rather avoid the last, because of the brittleness of intensional ref-set 
query syntax expressions. In any case, we need a better idea of what meta-data 
are needed. E.g.:

  *   something to do with (min) version of terminology required for the 
reference to be valid
  *   something to do with purpose?
  *   other notes - a tagged list of basic types?

I would like to get a

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

2018-03-12 Thread Michael.Lawley 
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 they identify FHIR ValueSets that 
expand to the set of codes you want.

You could do a lot worse than adopting the FHIR ValueSet mechanism for binding. 
There are some excellent terminology servers out there (full disclosure, one of 
them, Ontoserver, is mine).

Michael


Sent from my iPhone

On 12 Mar 2018, at 7:00 pm, Diego Boscá 
> wrote:

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 with that in 
the future

2018-03-12 1:38 GMT+01:00 Pablo Pazos 
>:
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 formed 
by one specific concept code. Also the expression being something processable 
and very versatile, we can express complex concepts with a few codes, which 
will help on adding knowledge to the archetype and serve to a better and 
simpler CDS.

About the metadata, there should be expressed against which SNOMED release this 
expression was created. We can't be sure only with min version. I should be 
responsibility of the user to check if the expression works on a different 
version/release of SNOMED. Another metadata is if the version is a local 
extension, some countries have their own extensions.

I don't know if we need to support other terminologies (technically) and if 
doing that is useful (strategically). Terminology services can do SNOMED to 
ICD, and ICD is not clinical relevant. LOINC is useful, but there is a 
SNOMED-LOINC collaboration, so we might expect an official mapping in the 
future (https://loinc.org/collaboration/snomed-international/). IMO we should 
focus on SNOMED.

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Thomas Beale 
> wrote:
Recently we discussed terminology bindings. We probably still have not got them 
right, but we don't have a model of what we think they should be. I posted a 
quick idea of a possible more structured version:


term_bindings = <
["snomed_ct"] = <
["/data[id3]/events[id4]/data[id2]/items[id26]"] = (SIMPLE_BINDING) 
<
target =  -- Apgar score at 
1 minute
notes = <"some notes">
min_version = <"2017-02-01">
etc = <"etc">
>
["id26"] = (CONSTRAINT_BINDING) <
target = <"71388002 |Procedure| : 405815000 |Procedure device|  
=  122456005 |Laser device| , 260686004 |Method|  =  129304002 |Excision - 
action| ,405813007 |Procedure site - direct|  =  1549700l6 |Ovarian structure|">
   min_version = <"2017-04-01">
notes = <"some notes">
etc = <"etc">
>
>
>

I noted that the right hand side of a binding can be a few different things, 
each of which would be accompanied by various meta-data, including:

  *   a single concept code
  *   a single code or other id referring to an external value set in an 
external terminology (in SNOMED it is a SNOMED code; for e.g. ICD10, there is 
no standard that I know of)
  *   a composition expression that refers to a more refined concept
  *   possible a constraint expression that locally determines a value set 
intensionally, to be resolved by application to the Terminology service.

I'd rather avoid the last, because of the brittleness of intensional ref-set 
query syntax expressions. In any case, we need a better idea of what meta-data 
are needed. E.g.:

  *   something to do with (min) version of terminology required for the 
reference to be valid
  *   something to do with purpose?
  *   other notes - a tagged list of basic types?

I would like to get a better idea of the requirements.

- thomas


--
Thomas Beale
Principal, Ars Semantica
Consultant, ABD Team, Intermountain 
Healthcare
Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR 
Foundation
Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer 
Society
Health IT blog | Culture 
blog

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

2018-03-12 Thread Diego Boscá 
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 with that
in the future

2018-03-12 1:38 GMT+01:00 Pablo Pazos :

> 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 formed by one specific concept code. Also the expression being
> something processable and very versatile, we can express complex concepts
> with a few codes, which will help on adding knowledge to the archetype and
> serve to a better and simpler CDS.
>
> About the metadata, there should be expressed against which SNOMED release
> this expression was created. We can't be sure only with min version. I
> should be responsibility of the user to check if the expression works on a
> different version/release of SNOMED. Another metadata is if the version is
> a local extension, some countries have their own extensions.
>
> I don't know if we need to support other terminologies (technically) and
> if doing that is useful (strategically). Terminology services can do SNOMED
> to ICD, and ICD is not clinical relevant. LOINC is useful, but there is a
> SNOMED-LOINC collaboration, so we might expect an official mapping in the
> future (https://loinc.org/collaboration/snomed-international/). IMO we
> should focus on SNOMED.
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Thomas Beale 
> wrote:
>
>> Recently we discussed terminology bindings. We probably still have not
>> got them right, but we don't have a model of what we think they should be.
>> I posted a quick idea of a possible more structured version:
>>
>> term_bindings = <
>> ["snomed_ct"] = <
>> ["/data[id3]/events[id4]/data[id2]/items[id26]"] = 
>> (SIMPLE_BINDING)  
>> -- Apgar score at 1 minute notes = <"some notes">
>>  min_version = <"2017-02-01">
>>  etc = <"etc">
>>  >
>> ["id26"] = (CONSTRAINT_BINDING) > <"71388002 |Procedure| : 405815000 |Procedure device|  =  122456005 |Laser 
>> device| , 260686004 |Method|  =  129304002 |Excision - action| ,405813007 
>> |Procedure site - direct|  =  1549700l6 |Ovarian structure|">
>> min_version = <"2017-04-01">
>>  notes = <"some notes">
>>  etc = <"etc">
>>  >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> I noted that the right hand side of a binding can be a few different
>> things, each of which would be accompanied by various meta-data, including:
>>
>>- a single concept code
>>- a single code or other id referring to an external value set in an
>>external terminology (in SNOMED it is a SNOMED code; for e.g. ICD10, there
>>is no standard that I know of)
>>- a composition expression that refers to a more refined concept
>>- possible a constraint expression that locally determines a value
>>set intensionally, to be resolved by application to the Terminology 
>> service.
>>
>> I'd rather avoid the last, because of the brittleness of intensional
>> ref-set query syntax expressions. In any case, we need a better idea of
>> what meta-data are needed. E.g.:
>>
>>- something to do with (min) version of terminology required for the
>>reference to be valid
>>- something to do with purpose?
>>- other notes - a tagged list of basic types?
>>
>> I would like to get a better idea of the requirements.
>>
>> - thomas
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Beale
>> Principal, Ars Semantica 
>> Consultant, ABD Team, Intermountain Healthcare
>> 
>> Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation
>> 
>> Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society
>> 
>> Health IT blog  | Culture blog
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-clinical mailing list
>> openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_
>> lists.openehr.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
> pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com
> +598 99 043 145 <+598%2099%20043%20145>
> skype: cabolabs
> 
> http://www.cabolabs.com
> https://cloudehrserver.com
> Subscribe to our newsletter 
>
> ___
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org
>

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

2018-03-12 Thread GF 
The scope of LOINC is NOT the same as the scope of SNOMED.

Gerard   Freriks
+31 620347088
  gf...@luna.nl

Kattensingel  20
2801 CA Gouda
the Netherlands

> On 12 Mar 2018, at 08:39, Mikael Nyström <mikael.nyst...@liu.se> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  
> I do that too. It seems like more and more people are moving away from the 
> position that SNOMED CT is complex and expensive to a position that SNOMED CT 
> is manageable and an affordable way of getting rid of local terminologies and 
> add value.
>  
>  Regards
>  Mikael
>  
>  
> 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 <openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org>
> Kopia: Openehr-Technical <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
> Ämne: Re: Terminology bindings ... again
>  
> Thanks Mikael, that's what I suspected. I'm seeing a convergence in terms of 
> clinical terminology towards SNOMED CT.
>  
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:57 AM, Mikael Nyström <mikael.nyst...@liu.se 
> <mailto:mikael.nyst...@liu.se>> wrote:
> Hi,
>  
> Yes, it is correct that expressions include single code binding. Those kinds 
> of bindings are just the simplest variants of expressions. :-)
>  
> I think that in a few years’ time nearly all implementations of SNOMED CT not 
> only implement the international version, but also one are a few 
> international, national or local extensions, so this use case is probably the 
> normal use case and not the exceptional use case.
>  
>  Regards
>  Mikael
>  (Among other things SNOMED CT Implementation 
> Advisor)
>  
> Från: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org 
> <mailto:openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org>] För Pablo Pazos
> Skickat: den 12 mars 2018 01:39
> Till: For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org 
> <mailto:openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org>>
> Kopia: Openehr-Technical <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org 
> <mailto:openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>>
> Ämne: 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 
> formed by one specific concept code. Also the expression being something 
> processable and very versatile, we can express complex concepts with a few 
> codes, which will help on adding knowledge to the archetype and serve to a 
> better and simpler CDS.
> 
> About the metadata, there should be expressed against which SNOMED release 
> this expression was created. We can't be sure only with min version. I should 
> be responsibility of the user to check if the expression works on a different 
> version/release of SNOMED. Another metadata is if the version is a local 
> extension, some countries have their own extensions.
> 
> I don't know if we need to support other terminologies (technically) and if 
> doing that is useful (strategically). Terminology services can do SNOMED to 
> ICD, and ICD is not clinical relevant. LOINC is useful, but there is a 
> SNOMED-LOINC collaboration, so we might expect an official mapping in the 
> future (https://loinc.org/collaboration/snomed-international/ 
> <https://loinc.org/collaboration/snomed-international/>). IMO we should focus 
> on SNOMED.
>  
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Thomas Beale <thomas.be...@openehr.org 
> <mailto:thomas.be...@openehr.org>> wrote:
> Recently we discussed terminology bindings. We probably still have not got 
> them right, but we don't have a model of what we think they should be. I 
> posted a quick idea of a possible more structured version:
> 
> term_bindings = <
> ["snomed_ct"] = <
> ["/data[id3]/events[id4]/data[id2]/items[id26]"] = 
> (SIMPLE_BINDING) <
>  target = <http://snomedct.info/id/169895004 
> <http://snomedct.info/id/169895004>> -- Apgar score at 1 minute
>  notes = <"some notes">
>  min_version = <"2017-02-01">
>  etc = <"etc">
>   >
> ["id26"] = (CONSTRAINT_BINDING) <
>target = <"71388002 |Procedure| : 40

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

2018-03-12 Thread Pablo Pazos 
Thanks Mikael, that's what I suspected. I'm seeing a convergence in terms
of clinical terminology towards SNOMED CT.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:57 AM, Mikael Nyström <mikael.nyst...@liu.se>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> Yes, it is correct that expressions include single code binding. Those
> kinds of bindings are just the simplest variants of expressions. :-)
>
>
>
> I think that in a few years’ time nearly all implementations of SNOMED CT
> not only implement the international version, but also one are a few
> international, national or local extensions, so this use case is probably
> the normal use case and not the exceptional use case.
>
>
>
>  Regards
>
>  Mikael
>
>  (Among other things SNOMED CT Implementation
> Advisor)
>
>
>
> *Från:* openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-
> boun...@lists.openehr.org] *För *Pablo Pazos
> *Skickat:* den 12 mars 2018 01:39
> *Till:* For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical@lists.
> openehr.org>
> *Kopia:* Openehr-Technical <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
> *Ämne:* 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 formed by one specific concept code. Also the expression being
> something processable and very versatile, we can express complex concepts
> with a few codes, which will help on adding knowledge to the archetype and
> serve to a better and simpler CDS.
>
> About the metadata, there should be expressed against which SNOMED release
> this expression was created. We can't be sure only with min version. I
> should be responsibility of the user to check if the expression works on a
> different version/release of SNOMED. Another metadata is if the version is
> a local extension, some countries have their own extensions.
>
> I don't know if we need to support other terminologies (technically) and
> if doing that is useful (strategically). Terminology services can do SNOMED
> to ICD, and ICD is not clinical relevant. LOINC is useful, but there is a
> SNOMED-LOINC collaboration, so we might expect an official mapping in the
> future (https://loinc.org/collaboration/snomed-international/). IMO we
> should focus on SNOMED.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Thomas Beale <thomas.be...@openehr.org>
> wrote:
>
> Recently we discussed terminology bindings. We probably still have not got
> them right, but we don't have a model of what we think they should be. I
> posted a quick idea of a possible more structured version:
>
>
> *term_bindings* = <
>
> ["snomed_ct"] = <
>
> ["/data[id3]/events[id4]/data[id2]/items[id26]"] = 
> (SIMPLE_BINDING) <
>
>  target = <http://snomedct.info/id/169895004> *-- Apgar score at 
> 1 minute*
>
>  notes = <"some notes">
>
>  min_version = <"2017-02-01">
>
>  etc = <"etc">
>
>   >
>
> ["id26"] = (CONSTRAINT_BINDING) <
>
>target = <"71388002 |Procedure| : 405815000 |Procedure device| 
>  =  122456005 |Laser device| , 260686004 |Method|  =  129304002 |Excision - 
> action| ,405813007 |Procedure site - direct|  =  1549700l6 |Ovarian 
> structure|">
>
>   min_version = <"2017-04-01">
>
>notes = <"some notes">
>
>etc = <"etc">
>
>>
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
> I noted that the right hand side of a binding can be a few different
> things, each of which would be accompanied by various meta-data, including:
>
>- a single concept code
>- a single code or other id referring to an external value set in an
>external terminology (in SNOMED it is a SNOMED code; for e.g. ICD10, there
>is no standard that I know of)
>- a composition expression that refers to a more refined concept
>- possible a constraint expression that locally determines a value set
>intensionally, to be resolved by application to the Terminology service.
>
> I'd rather avoid the last, because of the brittleness of intensional
> ref-set query syntax expressions. In any case, we need a better idea of
> what meta-data are needed. E.g.:
>
>- somethi

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

2018-03-11 Thread Pablo Pazos 
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
formed by one specific concept code. Also the expression being something
processable and very versatile, we can express complex concepts with a few
codes, which will help on adding knowledge to the archetype and serve to a
better and simpler CDS.

About the metadata, there should be expressed against which SNOMED release
this expression was created. We can't be sure only with min version. I
should be responsibility of the user to check if the expression works on a
different version/release of SNOMED. Another metadata is if the version is
a local extension, some countries have their own extensions.

I don't know if we need to support other terminologies (technically) and if
doing that is useful (strategically). Terminology services can do SNOMED to
ICD, and ICD is not clinical relevant. LOINC is useful, but there is a
SNOMED-LOINC collaboration, so we might expect an official mapping in the
future (https://loinc.org/collaboration/snomed-international/). IMO we
should focus on SNOMED.

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Thomas Beale 
wrote:

> Recently we discussed terminology bindings. We probably still have not got
> them right, but we don't have a model of what we think they should be. I
> posted a quick idea of a possible more structured version:
>
> term_bindings = <
> ["snomed_ct"] = <
> ["/data[id3]/events[id4]/data[id2]/items[id26]"] = 
> (SIMPLE_BINDING) < target =  
> -- Apgar score at 1 minute notes = <"some notes">
>   min_version = <"2017-02-01">
>   etc = <"etc">
>   >
> ["id26"] = (CONSTRAINT_BINDING) < target = <"71388002 
> |Procedure| : 405815000 |Procedure device|  =  122456005 |Laser device| , 
> 260686004 |Method|  =  129304002 |Excision - action| ,405813007 |Procedure 
> site - direct|  =  1549700l6 |Ovarian structure|">min_version 
> = <"2017-04-01">
>   notes = <"some notes">
>   etc = <"etc">
>   >
> >
> >
>
>
> I noted that the right hand side of a binding can be a few different
> things, each of which would be accompanied by various meta-data, including:
>
>- a single concept code
>- a single code or other id referring to an external value set in an
>external terminology (in SNOMED it is a SNOMED code; for e.g. ICD10, there
>is no standard that I know of)
>- a composition expression that refers to a more refined concept
>- possible a constraint expression that locally determines a value set
>intensionally, to be resolved by application to the Terminology service.
>
> I'd rather avoid the last, because of the brittleness of intensional
> ref-set query syntax expressions. In any case, we need a better idea of
> what meta-data are needed. E.g.:
>
>- something to do with (min) version of terminology required for the
>reference to be valid
>- something to do with purpose?
>- other notes - a tagged list of basic types?
>
> I would like to get a better idea of the requirements.
>
> - thomas
>
>
> --
> Thomas Beale
> Principal, Ars Semantica 
> Consultant, ABD Team, Intermountain Healthcare
> 
> Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation
> 
> Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society
> 
> Health IT blog  | Culture blog
> 
>
> ___
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-
> clinical_lists.openehr.org
>



-- 
Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com
+598 99 043 145
skype: cabolabs

http://www.cabolabs.com
https://cloudehrserver.com
Subscribe to our newsletter 
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

RE: Terminology bindings ... again

2017-07-19 Thread Koray Atalag 
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 uses term Effective Time

Cheers,

-koray

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

Recently we discussed terminology bindings. We probably still have not got them 
right, but we don't have a model of what we think they should be. I posted a 
quick idea of a possible more structured version:



term_bindings = <

["snomed_ct"] = <

["/data[id3]/events[id4]/data[id2]/items[id26]"] = (SIMPLE_BINDING) 
<

   target =  -- Apgar score at 1 
minute

   notes = <"some notes">

   min_version = <"2017-02-01">

   etc = <"etc">

>

["id26"] = (CONSTRAINT_BINDING) <

 target = <"71388002 |Procedure| : 405815000 |Procedure device| 
 =  122456005 |Laser device| , 260686004 |Method|  =  129304002 |Excision - 
action| ,405813007 |Procedure site - direct|  =  1549700l6 |Ovarian structure|">

min_version = <"2017-04-01">

 notes = <"some notes">

 etc = <"etc">

 >

>

>

I noted that the right hand side of a binding can be a few different things, 
each of which would be accompanied by various meta-data, including:

  *   a single concept code
  *   a single code or other id referring to an external value set in an 
external terminology (in SNOMED it is a SNOMED code; for e.g. ICD10, there is 
no standard that I know of)
  *   a composition expression that refers to a more refined concept
  *   possible a constraint expression that locally determines a value set 
intensionally, to be resolved by application to the Terminology service.
I'd rather avoid the last, because of the brittleness of intensional ref-set 
query syntax expressions. In any case, we need a better idea of what meta-data 
are needed. E.g.:

  *   something to do with (min) version of terminology required for the 
reference to be valid
  *   something to do with purpose?
  *   other notes - a tagged list of basic types?
I would like to get a better idea of the requirements.

- thomas

--
Thomas Beale
Principal, Ars Semantica
Consultant, ABD Team, Intermountain 
Healthcare
Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR 
Foundation
Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer 
Society
Health IT blog | Culture 
blog
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org