Re: SNOW Shrine Ontology

That was a SCHILS decision. Our goal was to be compatible with their shrine, and that is how they did it. We followed. Phillip Sent from my iPhone On Oct 3, 2017, at 2:05 PM, Andrew Hangsleben mailto:hangs...@umn.edu>> wrote: Now that I've gotten it all set up it doesn't matter much to me,

Re: [gpc-informatics] #280: Medication ontology orgainzed by ingredient

#280: Medication ontology orgainzed by ingredient -+ Reporter: preeder | Owner: campbell Type: enhancement | Status: assigned Priority: major| Milestone: snow-shrine-2 Component: data-stds| Resolution:

Re: SNOW Shrine Ontology

Now that I've gotten it all set up it doesn't matter much to me, but it might be simpler in the future if we used the PCORnet ontology. Then we could use an adapter mappings file that maps every term to itself like the ACT Shrine setup. Plus there would be no need to maintain the duplicate ontology

Re: [gpc-informatics] #280: Medication ontology orgainzed by ingredient

#280: Medication ontology orgainzed by ingredient -+ Reporter: preeder | Owner: campbell Type: enhancement | Status: assigned Priority: major| Milestone: snow-shrine-2 Component: data-stds| Resolution:

Re: SNOW Shrine Ontology

UTSW is currently making DB changes. Once it comes back, we'll start returning results again. Phillip From: Gpc-dev mailto:gpc-dev-boun...@listserv.kumc.edu>> on behalf of Dan Connolly mailto:dconno...@kumc.edu>> Date: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 1:47 PM To: Andrew Hangsleben mailto:hangs...@

RE: SNOW Shrine Ontology

Yay! Indeed, a simple demographics test gets counts from UMN as well as UTHSCSA, MCW, KUMC, and MCRF (but not UTSW? odd...). As to your question: If I understand correctly, SHRINE adapter mappings are not optional. At a minimum, it's a big CSV file with all the terms repeated in both the 1st an

Re: SNOW Shrine Ontology

Thanks Dan, we should be up and running at UMN now; I ran a few queries to verify we were returning results. Out of curiosity, is there any reason we aren't using the PCORnet ontology directly in shrine instead of the shrine ontology + adapter mappings? Regards, Andrew On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 10:5

RE: SNOW Shrine Ontology

Yes, that's how it works. #411 should have details. -- Dan From: Gpc-dev [gpc-dev-boun...@listserv.kumc.edu] on behalf of Andrew Hangsleben [hangs...@umn.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 10:43 AM

SNOW Shrine Ontology

Hi Everyone, We are working on getting our ontology and mappings configured here at UMN. I was hoping someone could help me understand which ontologies we are using for the SNOW network. My current understanding is that sites are using the PCORnet/SCIHLS locally, but we are using the shrine ontolog

RE: Gpc-dev Digest, Vol 44, Issue 4

es from UTHSCSA, UIOWA, and CMH (among others) in notes from a 27 Sep GPC site PM meeting. -- Dan -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://listserv.kumc.edu/pipermail/gpc-dev/attachments/20171003/ef52eadc/attachment-0001.html> ---

RE: GPC SNOW SHRINE status at LEC - 2 Weeks: gold: UTSW, KUMC; silver: MCRF; bronze: WISC, UNMC

I would guess that the i2b2 server does not need to initate requests to the SHRINE server. To confirm this, try setting up an iptables rule on the SHRINE server to block the incoming TCP traffic on port 6443. If things are working, then the SHRINE server is only considered the client (sends re

Re: GPC SNOW SHRINE status at LEC - 2 Weeks: gold: UTSW, KUMC; silver: MCRF; bronze: WISC, UNMC

I am actively working (over weekend, yesterday and today) on the Indiana node and hope to have the issues resolved ASAP. I just sent a question to the SHRINE listserve but perhaps someone here knows the answer: When running i2b2 and SHRINE on separate application servers, does the I2B2 server n