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 > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
