constraint binding error

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

constraint binding error

ez > LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez > Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos > > > > > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:36:12 + > From: thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com >

constraint binding error

On 24/02/2011 02:39, Diego Bosc? wrote: > I vote for that :) > > 2011/2/24 Hugh Leslie: > * > * some time ago I added this page, on more or less the same topic: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/term/Terminology+Identification - please feel free to update with some notes If you go to http://

constraint binding error

> WHat are the rules for establishing new URNs? http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xml and RFC 3406 I think a well designed IHTSDO urn specification could be useful. urn:ihtsdo:SCT-AU:20100131+:refset:135394005 etc This doesn't help out with other terminology sets l

constraint binding error

Thomas Beale wrote: > What probably does make sense anyway is to relax the spec in ADL 1.5 > to allow both forms (and one day, probably we get rid of the URI > form). Does that seem reasonable? This would mean, then, a revision to section 8.3.1 of the AOM 1.5 spec. Currently it says that AR

constraint binding error

Indeed, in Australia, it would be ICD-10-AM but the version would correspond to the particular "Edition" you're using. Hence my example URI still included the string SNOMED so that one knows how to interpret the v=, s=, m= elements. Clearly every standard terminology is going to have it's own

constraint binding error

Surely spaces should not be an issue here as these strings do not really identify anything. Instead, one should be using SCTIDs as in: terminology:Snomed?v=2002?s=135394005 Further issues include: * the version should be specified using an ISO 8601 basic representation of MMDD (or

constraint binding error

> - we need some way to define/specify what is the canonical form of a > URI/URN, we must agree in a terminology of names (of terminologies :D) and > subsets. > ? - Snomed is the same as SNOMED? or ICD10 is the same as ICD 10 or CIE 10 > (CIE = ICD in spanish)? > - we cannot rely of one tool implem

constraint binding error

Just to clarify some more, my contention is that you cannot look inside a arbitrary URI to pick out values without looking at the formal 'scheme' dependent spec. So in the case of a 'http' URI, we can read the spec and know what the bits mean - _for the purposes of fetching data from web servers u

constraint binding error

I'm confused as to whether the intention here was really URI, URL or URN? My understanding was that the use of DV_URI for term binding in archetypes was more in the vein of global identification of resources (more URN) rather than actually telling the software how to get to the resource (ala URL).

constraint binding error

Diego Bosc? wrote: > and we have also to deal with spaces! > Spaces are illegal in URIs. The correct form for the subset would be: subset=Antiallergenic%20drugs%20(product) - Peter

constraint binding error

On 21/02/2011 12:05, Colin Sutton wrote: > Both ICD 10 and ICD 10-AM have yearly updates. Mapping tables are issued to > show the changes: new codes are introduced, some are deleted, and some change > their meaning... > > It seems to me a terminology server for each terminology version is needed

constraint binding error

pablo pazos wrote: > I think the URI way to define constraint bindings can be ambiguous > and hide some semantics needed to understand where to find the > terminology terms and codes. > Please correct me if I'm wrong: > > One archetype can have this: ["ac0001"] = subset=DrugForm> > And anothe

constraint binding error

ubject: Re: constraint binding error On 21/02/2011 04:14, pablo pazos wrote: Hi Michael, Not every terminology version is a date. In ICD 10, the version is "10". I think the version to be a valid date is not a problem here. most people consider ICD10 as simply a different terminology f

constraint binding error

Diego Bosc? wrote: > And again not that difficult to support both kind of bindings. In my > opinion, is way more human > readable and needs the same degree of 'computer interpretation' than > the URI I would agree that the form may be more legible to humans. For computer interpretation, how

constraint binding error

decision, so, generated > archetype will be inconsistent. > > > -- > Kind regards, > A/C Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez > LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez > Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos > > &

constraint binding error

Diego Bosc? wrote: > I know it is on ADL specs, but why limit it to an URI? Second approach > could also be used to identify a subset The URI approach is able to specify subsets, Diego. Here is an example, generated by the current Archetype Editor beta release (available from http://www.open

constraint binding error

and also, binding to URL seems like a bad decision for archetype maintainability 2011/2/21 Andrew Patterson : > Just to clarify some more, my contention is that you cannot > look inside a arbitrary URI to pick out values without > looking at the formal 'scheme' dependent spec. > > So in the case o

constraint binding error

I had better be more precise here ;-) 'proper' URIs or URNs may be the correct approach. URLs almost certainly are not. So the spec might remain correct technically, just that the guidance for what URIs can be used should probably change. - thomas On 21/02/2011 11:06, Peter Gummer wrote: > T

constraint binding error

On 21/02/2011 04:14, pablo pazos wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Not every terminology version is a date. In ICD 10, the version is > "10". I think the version to be a valid date is not a problem here. > * > * most people consider ICD10 as simply a different terminology from ICD9. There are variants lik

constraint binding error

a solution is most likely to happen and succeed. Tom Seabury -Original Message- From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of michael.law...@csiro.au Sent: 21 February 2011 03:47 To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subjec

constraint binding error

That was my point, that was a real Snomed attribute, with the spaces. The result is even more unreadable 2011/2/21 Peter Gummer : > Diego Bosc? wrote: > >> and we have also to deal with spaces! >> > > Spaces are illegal in URIs. The correct form for the subset would be: > > ? ? ? ?subset=Antialle

constraint binding error

din.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:36:12 + From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: Re: constraint binding error On 21/02/2011 04

constraint binding error

> > What do you think? > > -- > Kind regards, > A/C Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez > LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez > Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ > Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos > > > >> From: peter.gummer at oceaninfo

constraint binding error

On 21/02/2011 03:28, Andrew Patterson wrote: > > Would like to see an agreed upon list of canonical URI/URN for the > terminology bindings that people are using in practice with real > current terminology sources so that we can get some harmonization. me too. If someone wants to come up with a sim

constraint binding error

On 21/02/2011 02:42, Andrew Patterson wrote: > Just to clarify some more, my contention is that you cannot > look inside a arbitrary URI to pick out values without > looking at the formal 'scheme' dependent spec. > > So in the case of a 'http' URI, we can read the spec and know > what the bits mean

constraint binding error

this relates to the question of how SNOMED represents Ref set ids. In SCT concept space, all 'concept' ids are unique for the whole planet, with special bits being used to distinguish concepts and ref sets within national or other 'extensions' (i.e. outside the international release). So the q

constraint binding error

On 21/02/2011 00:42, Diego Bosc? wrote: > I know it is on ADL specs, but why limit it to an URI? Second approach > could also be used to identify a subset > > I understand the URI need, but I can think more than one occasion > where you have a defined termset and no URI for it that is correct - UR

constraint binding error

If that is the valid way of defining in an URI form, it is undocumented. the example should be put on the ADL specs. And again not that difficult to support both kind of bindings. In my opinion, is way more human readable and needs the same degree of 'computer interpretation' than the URI 2011/

constraint binding error

I know it is on ADL specs, but why limit it to an URI? Second approach could also be used to identify a subset I understand the URI need, but I can think more than one occasion where you have a defined termset and no URI for it 2011/2/18 Peter Gummer : > Cati Mart?nez wrote: > >> ["ac0001"] = <[C

constraint binding error

ogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos > From: Michael.Lawley at csiro.au > To: openehr-technical at openehr.org > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:46:43 +1100 > Subject: Re: constraint binding error > > > Surely spaces should not be an issue here as these strings do

constraint binding error

://twitter.com/ppazos > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:42:31 +1100 > Subject: Re: constraint binding error > From: andrewpatto at gmail.com > To: openehr-technical at openehr.org > > Just to clarify some more, my contention is that you cannot > look inside a arbitrary URI to pi

constraint binding error

itory? What do you think? -- Kind regards, A/C Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos > From: peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com > To: openehr-technical at openehr.org &g

constraint binding error

Cati Mart?nez wrote: > ["ac0001"] = <[CONSULTA::1]> > > The ADL parser throws an error with this last one. is it right? Hi Cati, That last one is not a valid constraint binding. It has to be a valid URI. - Peter

constraint binding error

Hello, somebody knows which is the correct type of a constraint binding? In all the examples I have checked and in the ADL grammar (adl.jj), it is specified by using an URL. for instance: [?ac0001?] = but I have seen in other archetypes something like thi