Hi,
When it comes to terminology queries and SNOMED CT I would like to promote
IHTSDO:s "SNOMED CT Expression Constraint Syntax Specification for Terminology
Binding". The specifications is currently in the "Public draft" status and can
be accessed from http://ihtsdo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/doc/ .
Regards
Mikael
Fr?n: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org]
F?r Koray Atalag
Skickat: den 2 april 2015 11:52
Till: For openEHR clinical discussions
?mne: RE: one-to-many term bindings in archetypes
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/20150402/67f5423a/attachment-0001.html>
