Hi everyone, I'd also suggest one and only one term_binding to a particular (version of) terminology for each archetype node. I think this is essential to get the semantics right in the world of Semantic Web / Linked Open Data worlds as well. I think we'll also see it is going to be used to link to unique identifiers (as in identifiers.org<http://identifiers.org/>) to non-ambiguously define it which can then be used to link to other resources) - so I think essentially a URI could also do it. Something to consider in Specifications program. Another aspect to think about is a terminology query - it is not at the top of my head at the moment but I remember reading current specs there is room for improvement in terminology section. So the question is can we define the semantics of a node in real world not just by referring to a single term but a terminology query. One example comes to my mind from a current practical example I'm working on is to limit the problem/diagnosis to a list of conditions called Acute Coronary Syndrome, there are a few individual diagnoses in it. In SNOMED because of relationships it is possible to find a single concept but for other terminologies this may not be possible. We may also want to refer to a custom set of SNOMED CT concepts as well. Thoughts?
Cheers, -koray From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of pablo pazos Sent: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 5:06 p.m. To: openEHR Clinical Subject: RE: one-to-many term bindings in archetypes Hi Daniel & Thomas, thanks for the input! I think it makes sense to have just one term_binding per terminology, and if more than one concept on the terminology represents the same concept, the terminology has some problems and the archetype editor/reviewer has to make a decision on which code to use. In the other hand, for one nodeID, different term_bindings can be created for different terminologies, that's supported by ADL1.4 I think. >From the last example by Daniel, I don't think it is correct to link abstract >Information Model classes to concepts using term bindings, since, as you >remark, those are abstract classes that are very generic, so they match >several concepts. But, when those classes are on an archetype, as in my >example, they represent very specific concepts (the recording of the BP in my >example). For me is clear that the desicion is on the archetype editor and he/she should choose just one concept code that matches that specific archetype node. Thanks a lot! -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com<http://cabolabs.com/es/home> > Subject: Re: one-to-many term bindings in archetypes > From: daniel.karlsson at liu.se<mailto:daniel.karlsson at liu.se> > To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical at > lists.openehr.org> > Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:54:09 +0200 > > Hi Everyone, > > there are multiple, equally correct/useful/etc. perspectives on reality > and that is not a situation SNOMED CT or any other terminology/ontology > can ever resolve. No terminology will ever be perfect since 1. "perfect" > is not unequivocally defined, 2. human effort is error prone, 3. > computational complexity limits use of technology. Imperfections are > probably easier to agree on ;) and SNOMED CT has its fair share of > those. However, quality programs have continuously improved the > situation. > > Then, within those boundaries terminologies can be used, through term > binding [ADL2, 8.11.4], to add external references to the meaning of > archetype nodes. If the meaning of the archetype node is not clear, > neither will any term binding be. Term binding is not only useful when > comparing data to other IM frameworks, e.g. Act.code is often used > corresponding to an ELEMENT term binding, but also to maintain a larger > set of archetypes by allowing e.g. terminology-based queries. > > In the example presented, there are at least three alternatives for term > binding OBSERVATION archetypes to SNOMED CT: a procedure, a finding, and > an observable entity. We would just have to agree on a set of patterns > for how (and if) to bind to ENTRY-ies, ELEMENTs etc. based on our > understanding of the meaning of the archetype nodes. A very tentative > such pattern for OBSERVATIONs could be: > OBSERVATION --> term-bind to <<386053000 | evaluation procedure > (procedure) | > ELEMENT --> term-bind to <<363787002 | observable entity (observable > entity) | > > /Daniel > > On s?n, 2015-03-29 at 22:10 +0100, Thomas Beale wrote: > > Hi Pablo, > > > > I presented to IHTSDO in about 2010 (PDF here) on the problem of > > multiple possible bindings in SNOMED CT for a given term. The problem > > is mainly that SNOMED has problems, not that it has multiple codes > > that we should legitimately bind to. There are overlapping concepts, > > duplicate concepts, wrong concepts, and right concepts. Of the 'right' > > ones, only some or none may correspond to the concept for a given node > > in the archetype. > > > > SNOMED CT is getting better, and someone like Daniel Karlsson would be > > able to give a better idea of how 'clean' it is today. > > > > You'll see some examples (BP and others) about 1/3 of the way in. > > > > - thomas > > > > On 29/03/2015 18:15, pablo pazos wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > I was reviewing some archetypes and on the "term_bindings" section > > > there are always one-to-one bindings. > > > I think we can have many codes in one terminology corresponding to > > > one at code in the archetype, e.g. in the blood pressure archetype > > > we have: > > > > > > > > > term_bindings = < > > > > > > ["SNOMED-CT"] = < > > > > > > items = < > > > > > > ["at0000"] = <[SNOMED-CT(2003)::163020007]> -- > > > Blood Pressure > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking for the 163020007 code in SNOMED, that corresponds to "On > > > Examination Blood Pressure Reading" > > > http://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/SNOMEDCT?p=classes&conceptid=163020007 > > > > > > > > > There is another concept "Blood pressure > > > taking" > > > http://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/SNOMEDCT?p=classes&conceptid=46973005 > > > that IMO also can correspond to the concept in the archetype. > > > > > > > > > Depending no context, some may use the first code, others may use > > > the second. > > > > > > > > > Is this approach right? Should we support one-to-many term bindings > > > in archetypes? > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > openEHR-clinical mailing list > > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-clinical at > > lists.openehr.org> > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-clinical at > lists.openehr.org> > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150402/4fe9e6ff/attachment.html>
