Re: Usage of Compositoin.Category

[Thomas Beale]

t when doing normal 
AQL queries.
* It MUST be possible to query for "report" compositions with specific content.

The solution to this problem is simple and I can give an example with an AQL 
query. Below is a standard query for body weight. Look at the WHERE condition. 
Here I am looking for all body weights which are NOT part of a report 
composition. This WHERE condition will be the default filter on all queries.
If the client would like to query for all body weights in report document, then 
just change from NOT EQUALS 434 to EQUALS 434.

 SELECT 
o/data[at0002]/events[at0003]/data[at0001]/items[at0004]/value/magnitude
 FROM COMPOSITION c
 CONTAINS OBSERVATION o[openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.body_weight.v1]
 WHERE c/category/defining_code/terminology_id/value = 'openehr'AND 
c/category/defining_code/code_string != '434'


Given that we agree that there is a class of compositions which belongs to the 
"report" group.
Then we should add such semantic into the RM to make it precise and consistent.


Best regards
Bjørn Næss
Product owner
DIPS ASA

Mobil +47 93 43 29 10

-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] På 
vegne av Ian McNicoll
Sendt: mandag 7. mars 2016 18.16
Til: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
Emne: Re: Usage of Compositoin.Category

Hi Björn,

I finally got around to thinking a bit about this.

It is an interesting problem and I think I can see the need to specify 
different data handling requirements but I am not sure that overloading 
composition.category is the best approach here.

I suspect this will take a bit of teasing out (and other commit/query strategy 
metadata) - might it be better to put this in a cluster archetype in the 
Composition extension slot. That would let us play around with the requirements 
before pushing something definitive to the RM?

So far I have 3 axes:

1. Normal commit strategy: persistence vs. event  i.e do we normally overwrite 
an existing composition.

2. Source-of-truth i.e. Should this document be regarded as the primary source 
of truth for certain kinds of data or otherwise e.g Does a system look into 
event compositions or e.g to a Problem list for 'current problems'

3. Is this a primary document or secondary document? e.g. a Discharge letter is 
a secondary document derived from other primary records.

Just starting the discussion :)

Ian


Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org Director, freshEHR 
Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL


On 17 February 2016 at 21:59, Bjørn Næss <b...@dips.no> wrote:

We are discussing the use of Composition.Category which is a DV_CODED_TEXT.

There is a terminology:









 



Is it required to use only these categories or could an application
set any DV_CODED_TEXT?



I think it would be ok to allow any category in this.



To be concrete:

The use-case is discharge summaries. These are Compositions which only
(“mostly”) contains links to existing entries. We will be using links
but since the Composition should be transferred to another health
provider it must be serialized and validated against an template.
Technically this Compostions contains a lot of entries which is “link to self”.



The idea we are considering is to introduce a category for these
Compositions. The content will not be part of AQL results for normal
use-cases. But IF you ask explicit for these categories you will be
able to query for discharge summaries which contains body weight above 120 kg.

  If we only add the references as links it will not be possible to add
them into forms and neither use a Template to validate the content.
This is the reason we are “thinking out of the box”.



Any comments on this?





Best regards
Bjørn Næss
Product Owner – Arena EHR
DIPS ASA

Mobil +47 93 43 29 10




___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.open
ehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
op

RE: Usage of Compositoin.Category

[Ivar Yrke]

"Preferred" data is a key issue here. I think "preferable" is an aspect of the 
scenario, not of the data itself. Therefore we must be able to be explicit in 
AQLs, so that each scenario can express its preference.

mvh
Ivar Yrke
Senior systemutvikler
DIPS ASA
Telefon +47 75 59 24 06
Mobil +47 90 78 89 33

-Original Message-
From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On 
Behalf Of Ian McNicoll
Sent: 14. mars 2016 18:50
To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
Subject: Re: Usage of Compositoin.Category

Hi Ivar,

I have no issue with the result of link handling in AQL being explicit and 
predictable but I don't think this solves the problem of deciding which is 
'preferred queryable' data. Where an active problem list is maintained, the 
preferred queryable data would, in many implementations (but not all) live at 
the end of a link/reference, rather than being in-line. From a clinical 
perspective, it really does not matter whether the problem list has been 
implemented as an in-line persistent-style composition with entries 'cloned' 
from their original event compositions or whether those original entries are 
simply referenced from the event compositions. I would agree that te latter 
approach is probably more elegant but from a clinical perspective, it is the 
Problem List composition that I choose to use as the preferred query route to 
retrieve problems, how it gets them is really up to the implementer. I would 
like to be able to express AQL statements agnostic to that underlying 
implementation choice.

Ian




Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org Director, freshEHR 
Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL


On 13 March 2016 at 08:20, Ivar Yrke <i...@dips.no> wrote:
> I said:
>
> "I can see that there possibly are needs for an AQL that resolves links, but 
> I would rather see this as the special case"
>
> which is basically exactly what Thomas says in his rephrasing of my last 
> statement. My key point is that link handling in AQL must be explicit and 
> predictable. Your scenarios illustrate why this is important.
>
> mvh
> Ivar Yrke
> Senior systemutvikler
> DIPS ASA
> Telefon +47 75 59 24 06
> Mobil +47 90 78 89 33
>
> -Original Message-
> From: openEHR-technical 
> [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Ian 
> McNicoll
> Sent: 12. mars 2016 08:41
> To: For openEHR technical discussions 
> <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
> Subject: Re: Usage of Compositoin.Category
>
> Hi Ivar,
>
> I'm not sure the situation is quite as clear-cut, in that I donlt think there 
> is necessarilly a simple distinction between primary data which should 
> normally be query-accessible and in-line vs. secondary data which is normally 
> query-inaccessible and referenced.
>
> A few scenarios
>
> 1. Vital signs event - easy!! Primary, in-line and accessible
>
> 2. Diagnosis event. Primary, in-line but depending on whether a secondary 
> problem list is maintained, you may not want to use these original diagnoses 
> events for decision support.
>
> 3. Problem summary. Secondary and definitely need to be query-accessible, but 
> may be in-line or referenced depending on implementation.
>
> 4. Discharge summary. Mostly secondary but may introduce new primary content 
> and again, whether the content is in-lie or referenced is to some extent an 
> implementation decision. DIPS have decided to use referencing, others do not.
>
> 5. End of Life Summary. The critical aspects of this document are primary e.g 
> Resuscitation wishes but other aspects are secondary (though and may be 
> in-line or referenced.
>
> I think the points raised are valid but we may need to tease out several axes 
> here.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> office +44 (0)1536 414994
> skype: ianmcnicoll
> email: i...@freshehr.com
> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>
> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org Director, freshEHR 
> Clinical Informatics Ltd.
> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
>
> On 11 March 2016 at 09:39, Ivar Yrke <i...@dips.no> wrote:
>> Hi
>> An interesting discussion that touches the very concept of structured 
>> information, in my opinion. I wonder if the suggested solution looks at the 
>> problem from the best angle. So here is my angle:
>>
>> As a person with some SQL experience I would expect an AQL to return 
>> ONLY primary cont

Re: Usage of Compositoin.Category

[Ian McNicoll]

Hi Ivar,

I have no issue with the result of link handling in AQL being explicit
and predictable but I don't think this solves the problem of deciding
which is 'preferred queryable' data. Where an active problem list is
maintained, the preferred queryable data would, in many
implementations (but not all) live at the end of a link/reference,
rather than being in-line. From a clinical perspective, it really does
not matter whether the problem list has been implemented as an in-line
persistent-style composition with entries 'cloned' from their original
event compositions or whether those original entries are simply
referenced from the event compositions. I would agree that te latter
approach is probably more elegant but from a clinical perspective, it
is the Problem List composition that I choose to use as the preferred
query route to retrieve problems, how it gets them is really up to the
implementer. I would like to be able to express AQL statements
agnostic to that underlying implementation choice.

Ian




Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL


On 13 March 2016 at 08:20, Ivar Yrke <i...@dips.no> wrote:
> I said:
>
> "I can see that there possibly are needs for an AQL that resolves links, but 
> I would rather see this as the special case"
>
> which is basically exactly what Thomas says in his rephrasing of my last 
> statement. My key point is that link handling in AQL must be explicit and 
> predictable. Your scenarios illustrate why this is important.
>
> mvh
> Ivar Yrke
> Senior systemutvikler
> DIPS ASA
> Telefon +47 75 59 24 06
> Mobil +47 90 78 89 33
>
> -Original Message-
> From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] 
> On Behalf Of Ian McNicoll
> Sent: 12. mars 2016 08:41
> To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
> Subject: Re: Usage of Compositoin.Category
>
> Hi Ivar,
>
> I'm not sure the situation is quite as clear-cut, in that I donlt think there 
> is necessarilly a simple distinction between primary data which should 
> normally be query-accessible and in-line vs. secondary data which is normally 
> query-inaccessible and referenced.
>
> A few scenarios
>
> 1. Vital signs event - easy!! Primary, in-line and accessible
>
> 2. Diagnosis event. Primary, in-line but depending on whether a secondary 
> problem list is maintained, you may not want to use these original diagnoses 
> events for decision support.
>
> 3. Problem summary. Secondary and definitely need to be query-accessible, but 
> may be in-line or referenced depending on implementation.
>
> 4. Discharge summary. Mostly secondary but may introduce new primary content 
> and again, whether the content is in-lie or referenced is to some extent an 
> implementation decision. DIPS have decided to use referencing, others do not.
>
> 5. End of Life Summary. The critical aspects of this document are primary e.g 
> Resuscitation wishes but other aspects are secondary (though and may be 
> in-line or referenced.
>
> I think the points raised are valid but we may need to tease out several axes 
> here.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> office +44 (0)1536 414994
> skype: ianmcnicoll
> email: i...@freshehr.com
> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>
> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org Director, freshEHR 
> Clinical Informatics Ltd.
> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
>
> On 11 March 2016 at 09:39, Ivar Yrke <i...@dips.no> wrote:
>> Hi
>> An interesting discussion that touches the very concept of structured 
>> information, in my opinion. I wonder if the suggested solution looks at the 
>> problem from the best angle. So here is my angle:
>>
>> As a person with some SQL experience I would expect an AQL to return
>> ONLY primary content unless told otherwise. Any content that lives in
>> a Composition as a link I would not expect to see in that Composition
>> as an entry. Resolving links is a task for the level "above"
>> (rendering on a screen etc.). I can see that there possibly are needs
>> for an AQL that resolves links, but I would rather see this as the
>> special case, much like joining in foreign keys in SQL is an explicit
>> decision (the SQL analogy have some obvious flaws!)
>>
>> Why is this important? Because showing linked information in compositions 
>> where they were not o

RE: Usage of Compositoin.Category

[Ivar Yrke]

I said:

"I can see that there possibly are needs for an AQL that resolves links, but I 
would rather see this as the special case"

which is basically exactly what Thomas says in his rephrasing of my last 
statement. My key point is that link handling in AQL must be explicit and 
predictable. Your scenarios illustrate why this is important. 

mvh
Ivar Yrke
Senior systemutvikler
DIPS ASA
Telefon +47 75 59 24 06
Mobil +47 90 78 89 33

-Original Message-
From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On 
Behalf Of Ian McNicoll
Sent: 12. mars 2016 08:41
To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
Subject: Re: Usage of Compositoin.Category

Hi Ivar,

I'm not sure the situation is quite as clear-cut, in that I donlt think there 
is necessarilly a simple distinction between primary data which should normally 
be query-accessible and in-line vs. secondary data which is normally 
query-inaccessible and referenced.

A few scenarios

1. Vital signs event - easy!! Primary, in-line and accessible

2. Diagnosis event. Primary, in-line but depending on whether a secondary 
problem list is maintained, you may not want to use these original diagnoses 
events for decision support.

3. Problem summary. Secondary and definitely need to be query-accessible, but 
may be in-line or referenced depending on implementation.

4. Discharge summary. Mostly secondary but may introduce new primary content 
and again, whether the content is in-lie or referenced is to some extent an 
implementation decision. DIPS have decided to use referencing, others do not.

5. End of Life Summary. The critical aspects of this document are primary e.g 
Resuscitation wishes but other aspects are secondary (though and may be in-line 
or referenced.

I think the points raised are valid but we may need to tease out several axes 
here.

Ian



Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org Director, freshEHR 
Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL


On 11 March 2016 at 09:39, Ivar Yrke <i...@dips.no> wrote:
> Hi
> An interesting discussion that touches the very concept of structured 
> information, in my opinion. I wonder if the suggested solution looks at the 
> problem from the best angle. So here is my angle:
>
> As a person with some SQL experience I would expect an AQL to return 
> ONLY primary content unless told otherwise. Any content that lives in 
> a Composition as a link I would not expect to see in that Composition 
> as an entry. Resolving links is a task for the level "above" 
> (rendering on a screen etc.). I can see that there possibly are needs 
> for an AQL that resolves links, but I would rather see this as the 
> special case, much like joining in foreign keys in SQL is an explicit 
> decision (the SQL analogy have some obvious flaws!)
>
> Why is this important? Because showing linked information in compositions 
> where they were not originally recorded creates doubt about the origin of the 
> information (source of truth). The duplication that Bjørn wants to solve is a 
> symptom of un unhealthy structure that undermines an essential aspect of 
> structured information. If a summary composition, like a discharge letter, 
> only links information from other composition, there should be no 
> duplication. So there should not be any need for later  special handling. 
> There should be no problem to solve (well, there would be the need for the 
> optional resolving, but this would be a feature rather than a problem).
>
> AQL should relate only to the data and how they are recorded, not to how they 
> are used.
>
> With regards,
> Ivar Yrke
> Senior systemutvikler
> DIPS ASA
> Telephone +47 75 59 24 06
> Mobil +47 90 78 89 33
> -Original Message-
> From: openEHR-technical 
> [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of 
> Bjørn Næss
> Sent: 10. mars 2016 20:33
> To: For openEHR technical discussions 
> <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
> Subject: SV: Usage of Compositoin.Category
>
> Hi Ian
> Great response.
>
> The most important thing for me is to precisely define the semantic meaning 
> of the content in a composition. In this specific use-case the content of the 
> composition is always a copy of the primary source.
> This means that the Discharge letter only bring one new thing into the EHR - 
> that is the fact that there is an approved discharge letter. But the entries 
> in the composition is link and copies of entries in other primary sources.
>
> The requirements to the system is quite small:
>
> * Content of "report" do

Re: Usage of Compositoin.Category

[Ian McNicoll]

 FROM COMPOSITION c
> CONTAINS OBSERVATION o[openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.body_weight.v1]
> WHERE c/category/defining_code/terminology_id/value = 'openehr'AND 
> c/category/defining_code/code_string != '434'
>
>
> Given that we agree that there is a class of compositions which belongs to 
> the "report" group.
> Then we should add such semantic into the RM to make it precise and 
> consistent.
>
>
> Best regards
> Bjørn Næss
> Product owner
> DIPS ASA
>
> Mobil +47 93 43 29 10
>
> -Opprinnelig melding-
> Fra: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] 
> På vegne av Ian McNicoll
> Sendt: mandag 7. mars 2016 18.16
> Til: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
> Emne: Re: Usage of Compositoin.Category
>
> Hi Björn,
>
> I finally got around to thinking a bit about this.
>
> It is an interesting problem and I think I can see the need to specify 
> different data handling requirements but I am not sure that overloading 
> composition.category is the best approach here.
>
> I suspect this will take a bit of teasing out (and other commit/query 
> strategy metadata) - might it be better to put this in a cluster archetype in 
> the Composition extension slot. That would let us play around with the 
> requirements before pushing something definitive to the RM?
>
> So far I have 3 axes:
>
> 1. Normal commit strategy: persistence vs. event  i.e do we normally 
> overwrite an existing composition.
>
> 2. Source-of-truth i.e. Should this document be regarded as the primary 
> source of truth for certain kinds of data or otherwise e.g Does a system look 
> into event compositions or e.g to a Problem list for 'current problems'
>
> 3. Is this a primary document or secondary document? e.g. a Discharge letter 
> is a secondary document derived from other primary records.
>
> Just starting the discussion :)
>
> Ian
>
>
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> office +44 (0)1536 414994
> skype: ianmcnicoll
> email: i...@freshehr.com
> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>
> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org Director, freshEHR 
> Clinical Informatics Ltd.
> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
>
> On 17 February 2016 at 21:59, Bjørn Næss <b...@dips.no> wrote:
>> We are discussing the use of Composition.Category which is a DV_CODED_TEXT.
>>
>> There is a terminology:
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it required to use only these categories or could an application
>> set any DV_CODED_TEXT?
>>
>>
>>
>> I think it would be ok to allow any category in this.
>>
>>
>>
>> To be concrete:
>>
>> The use-case is discharge summaries. These are Compositions which only
>> (“mostly”) contains links to existing entries. We will be using links
>> but since the Composition should be transferred to another health
>> provider it must be serialized and validated against an template.
>> Technically this Compostions contains a lot of entries which is “link to 
>> self”.
>>
>>
>>
>> The idea we are considering is to introduce a category for these
>> Compositions. The content will not be part of AQL results for normal
>> use-cases. But IF you ask explicit for these categories you will be
>> able to query for discharge summaries which contains body weight above 120 
>> kg.
>>
>>  If we only add the references as links it will not be possible to add
>> them into forms and neither use a Template to validate the content.
>> This is the reason we are “thinking out of the box”.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any comments on this?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>> Bjørn Næss
>> Product Owner – Arena EHR
>> DIPS ASA
>>
>> Mobil +47 93 43 29 10
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.open
>> ehr.org
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

RE: Usage of Compositoin.Category

[Ivar Yrke]

Hi
An interesting discussion that touches the very concept of structured 
information, in my opinion. I wonder if the suggested solution looks at the 
problem from the best angle. So here is my angle:

As a person with some SQL experience I would expect an AQL to return ONLY 
primary content unless told otherwise. Any content that lives in a Composition 
as a link I would not expect to see in that Composition as an entry. Resolving 
links is a task for the level "above" (rendering on a screen etc.). I can see 
that there possibly are needs for an AQL that resolves links, but I would 
rather see this as the special case, much like joining in foreign keys in SQL 
is an explicit decision (the SQL analogy have some obvious flaws!)

Why is this important? Because showing linked information in compositions where 
they were not originally recorded creates doubt about the origin of the 
information (source of truth). The duplication that Bjørn wants to solve is a 
symptom of un unhealthy structure that undermines an essential aspect of 
structured information. If a summary composition, like a discharge letter, only 
links information from other composition, there should be no duplication. So 
there should not be any need for later  special handling. There should be no 
problem to solve (well, there would be the need for the optional resolving, but 
this would be a feature rather than a problem).

AQL should relate only to the data and how they are recorded, not to how they 
are used.

With regards,
Ivar Yrke
Senior systemutvikler
DIPS ASA
Telephone +47 75 59 24 06
Mobil +47 90 78 89 33
-Original Message-
From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On 
Behalf Of Bjørn Næss
Sent: 10. mars 2016 20:33
To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
Subject: SV: Usage of Compositoin.Category

Hi Ian
Great response. 

The most important thing for me is to precisely define the semantic meaning of 
the content in a composition. In this specific use-case the content of the 
composition is always a copy of the primary source. 
This means that the Discharge letter only bring one new thing into the EHR - 
that is the fact that there is an approved discharge letter. But the entries in 
the composition is link and copies of entries in other primary sources. 

The requirements to the system is quite small: 

* Content of "report" documents MUST not be in the resultset when doing normal 
AQL queries. 
* It MUST be possible to query for "report" compositions with specific content. 

The solution to this problem is simple and I can give an example with an AQL 
query. Below is a standard query for body weight. Look at the WHERE condition. 
Here I am looking for all body weights which are NOT part of a report 
composition. This WHERE condition will be the default filter on all queries. 
If the client would like to query for all body weights in report document, then 
just change from NOT EQUALS 434 to EQUALS 434. 

SELECT 
o/data[at0002]/events[at0003]/data[at0001]/items[at0004]/value/magnitude 
FROM COMPOSITION c
CONTAINS OBSERVATION o[openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.body_weight.v1]
WHERE c/category/defining_code/terminology_id/value = 'openehr'AND 
c/category/defining_code/code_string != '434'


Given that we agree that there is a class of compositions which belongs to the 
"report" group.
Then we should add such semantic into the RM to make it precise and consistent. 


Best regards
Bjørn Næss
Product owner
DIPS ASA

Mobil +47 93 43 29 10

-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] På 
vegne av Ian McNicoll
Sendt: mandag 7. mars 2016 18.16
Til: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>
Emne: Re: Usage of Compositoin.Category

Hi Björn,

I finally got around to thinking a bit about this.

It is an interesting problem and I think I can see the need to specify 
different data handling requirements but I am not sure that overloading 
composition.category is the best approach here.

I suspect this will take a bit of teasing out (and other commit/query strategy 
metadata) - might it be better to put this in a cluster archetype in the 
Composition extension slot. That would let us play around with the requirements 
before pushing something definitive to the RM?

So far I have 3 axes:

1. Normal commit strategy: persistence vs. event  i.e do we normally overwrite 
an existing composition.

2. Source-of-truth i.e. Should this document be regarded as the primary source 
of truth for certain kinds of data or otherwise e.g Does a system look into 
event compositions or e.g to a Problem list for 'current problems'

3. Is this a primary document or secondary document? e.g. a Discharge letter is 
a secondary document derived from other primary records.

Just starting the discussion :)

Ian


Dr Ian McNicoll

Re: Usage of Compositoin.Category

[Thomas Beale]

Re: process, yes, it needs to be managed separately. Ian is the 
terminology component owner. But I assumed Bjørn  was talking about the 
semantics of the new term - 'Report'. Bjørn - can you elaborate on what 
Compositions would merit the 'report' Composition category?


- thomas

On 04/03/2016 08:45, Heath Frankel wrote:


Hi Bjorn,

How did you come up with the concept id of 434? We need to be careful 
about assigning our own concept ids, we really need openEHR to assign 
these, I suggest through the SEC process initiated by a Jira card.


At present we have two terminology files, as you know we have agreed 
to use the java implementation’s terminology xml file as the interim 
standard representation but there are already concept ids allocated in 
the Archetype Editor terminology file which existed before the 
terminology specification and the java implementation. In this case it 
looks like 434 is safe to use as it is not assigned to an openEHR 
concept in the Archetype Editor, but 435 is allocated to an openEHR 
concept in the setting group, which appears to be missing from the 
terminology specification and the java implementation xml.


Let’s start using the SEC process for managing openehr terminology 
concepts.


Regards

Heath

*From:*openEHR-technical 
[mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] *On Behalf Of 
*Bjørn Næss

*Sent:* Friday, 4 March 2016 6:46 PM
*To:* For openEHR technical discussions 


*Cc:* Team Selecta 
*Subject:* SV: Usage of Compositoin.Category

I just added a «composition category» on my fork of the terminology 
project.


https://github.com/bjornna/terminology/commit/600dec3058cd85f9db3e5859d6bffa7f01a45edf 





 

 

+ 

  

Any comments?



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

RE: Usage of Compositoin.Category

[Heath Frankel]

Hi Bjorn,
How did you come up with the concept id of 434? We need to be careful about 
assigning our own concept ids, we really need openEHR to assign these, I 
suggest through the SEC process initiated by a Jira card.

At present we have two terminology files, as you know we have agreed to use the 
java implementation's terminology xml file as the interim standard 
representation but there are already concept ids allocated in the Archetype 
Editor terminology file which existed before the terminology specification and 
the java implementation. In this case it looks like 434 is safe to use as it is 
not assigned to an openEHR concept in the Archetype Editor, but 435 is 
allocated to an openEHR concept in the setting group, which appears to be 
missing from the terminology specification and the java implementation xml.

Let's start using the SEC process for managing openehr terminology concepts.

Regards

Heath

From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On 
Behalf Of Bjørn Næss
Sent: Friday, 4 March 2016 6:46 PM
To: For openEHR technical discussions 
Cc: Team Selecta 
Subject: SV: Usage of Compositoin.Category

I just added a «composition category» on my fork of the terminology project.

https://github.com/bjornna/terminology/commit/600dec3058cd85f9db3e5859d6bffa7f01a45edf



   
   
+ 


Any comments?

Vennlig hilsen
Bjørn Næss
Produktansvarlig
DIPS ASA

Mobil +47 93 43 29 10

Fra: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] På 
vegne av Bjørn Næss
Sendt: onsdag 17. februar 2016 22.00
Til: 
openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org
Emne: Usage of Compositoin.Category

We are discussing the use of Composition.Category which is a DV_CODED_TEXT.
There is a terminology:


   
   


Is it required to use only these categories or could an application set any 
DV_CODED_TEXT?

I think it would be ok to allow any category in this.

To be concrete:
The use-case is discharge summaries. These are Compositions which only 
("mostly") contains links to existing entries. We will be using links but since 
the Composition should be transferred to another health provider it must be 
serialized and validated against an template. Technically this Compostions 
contains a lot of entries which is "link to self".

The idea we are considering is to introduce a category for these Compositions. 
The content will not be part of AQL results for normal use-cases. But IF you 
ask explicit for these categories you will be able to query for discharge 
summaries which contains body weight above 120 kg.
 If we only add the references as links it will not be possible to add them 
into forms and neither use a Template to validate the content. This is the 
reason we are "thinking out of the box".

Any comments on this?


Best regards
Bjørn Næss
Product Owner - Arena EHR
DIPS ASA

Mobil +47 93 43 29 10


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6189 / Virus Database: 4537/11743 - Release Date: 03/03/16
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org