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

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

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

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

2018-03-12 Thread GF
.@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,

Re: Terminology bindings ... again

2018-03-12 Thread Pablo Pazos
visor) > > > > *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-techn

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

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