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?
Thanks!
--
Kind regards,
Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
http://cabolabs.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150329/d7d2cd32/attachment.html>
