Hi Pablo,
The AE terminology file has been floating around since the dawn of time. Tim Cook has pointed out that it has languages, countries, terminology names as well as openEHR codes and interface terms. The Java group have put a simpler model together. It would be nice if we had a terminology file that did pool all the core terminology required by the reference model and archetypes as this simplifies implementation. I would be pleased to encourage a discussion on the best way forward for this. Cheers, Sam From: [email protected] [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of pablo pazos Sent: 29 November 2009 00:11 To: openehr clinical Subject: Questions about terminology model Hi, I need to implement the access for various terminologies, included the OpenEHR terminology. I've derived a class model from the openehr_terminology_en.xml but it seems this model is not compatible with the API proposed in support_im.pdf As an example, in openehr_terminology_en.xml, "terminology" is the only element that has a language, but in support_im.pdf, the CODE_SET_ACCESS class has an operation has_lang( lang ), but the code sets have no language to do this search. I have a question here, is it correct that a code set have a language? and code sets and codes are not language independent? I think the only "language-dependent item" is the description of the code, so I think that both openehr_terminology_en.xml and support_im.pdf have some bugs to fix, is it correct? And here are questions based on my ignorance, what's the difference between Group and CodeSet? and what's the difference between Code and Concept? Thanks a lot, Pablo Pazos Gutierrez _____ Keep your friends updated- even when you <http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/so cial-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_5:092010 > 're not signed in. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20091202/689ba095/attachment.html>
