IHTSDO meeting - term binding presentation available
Yes, the workflow stuff is just a tool feature. The RF2 spec is merely a file format and the spec has nothing to say about how such files may/should be generated. Regarding the clinical metadata elements you mention, these are not defined as part of RF2, but it should be possible to represent them using RF2 as it was designed to be an extensible format. michael Dr Michael Lawley Principal Research Scientist The Australia e-Health Research Centre http://aehrc.com/ +61 7 3253 3609; 0432 832 067 From: openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk [openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Ian McNicoll [ian.mcnic...@oceaninformatics.com] Sent: Thursday, 6 May 2010 11:16 PM To: For openEHR technical discussions Cc: openehr-clinical at openehr.org; openehr-clinical at chime.ucl.ac.uk; openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: Re: IHTSDO meeting - term binding presentation available Thanks Michael, Can I ask if the workflow/process elements of the Workbench are regarded as separate from the Refset 2 specifications, or within other offical IHTSDO specs? Or is this just intended as a local feature of the workbench? Although the Refset2 sepcifications define a greate deal of 'metadata', as far as I can tell , other than Refset name, this is almost wholly technical in nature and clinical metadata elements e.g use, misuse, purpose, authoring details are not defined - is this correct? Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.commailto:ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com ian at mcmi.co.ukmailto:ian at mcmi.co.uk Clinical Analyst Ocean Informatics openEHR Archetype Editorial Group Member BCS Primary Health Care SG Group www.phcsg.orghttp://www.phcsg.org / BCS Health Scotland On 6 May 2010 13:22, Michael.Lawley at csiro.au wrote: I would add to Eric's point 3 that (based on the content of an IHTSDO webinar) the workflow/process implemented in the IHTSDO workbench involves an explicit manual approval step for every item in the generated static refset. I don't know how/if there is any special support for dealing with re-generating the refset based on a new SNOMED release or a modified set of specification queries. m Dr Michael Lawley Principal Research Scientist The Australia e-Health Research Centre http://aehrc.com/ +61 7 3253 3609; 0432 832 067 From: openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.ukmailto:openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk [openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.ukmailto:openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Eric Browne [eric.browne at montagesystems.com.aumailto:eric.bro...@montagesystems.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 6 May 2010 9:20 PM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Cc: For openEHR clinical discussions; Openehr-Technical Subject: Re: IHTSDO meeting - term binding presentation available Hi Sebastian, If I can give my own perspective on this, having been peripherally involved for some time.. 1. Unfortunately, the IHTSDO (www.ihtsdo.orghttp://www.ihtsdo.org), who is responsible for the ongoing management and development of SNOMED CT, is still a somewhat closed and traditional standards development organisation. It has no publicly accessible wiki of resources ? la openEHR. It does, however, have a substantial community of individuals from member countries and affiliate organisations and several collaborative websites and mailing lists where ideas, contributions, new specifications etc. are documented and evolve. I would guess that the majority of participants are either active in other standards development organisations, or staff/affiliates of member nation health informatics programs such as the UK's NHS Connecting for Health Program, Canada's Infoway, Australia's National E-Health Transition Authority, etc. 2. For many years prior to IHTSDO taking over SNOMED CT from the College of American Pathologists, SNOMED CT embraced a mechanism and format for producing subsets of SNOMED CT. About 18 months ago, proposals for a new SNOMED release format and a new Reference Set format (to replace the old subset mechanism) emerged and evolved. These two proposals morphed into a single umbrella specification called Release Format 2, which has now reached Draft for Trial Use status within the IHTSDO. One of the specification documents covers Reference Set formats and is available in part 2 of RF2 at: http://www.ihtsdo.org/publications/draft-for-review-and-trial-use/ . This draft specification includes support for language refsets, which may be of particular interest to you. Access to the collaborative space where these documents are made available is described at: http://www.ihtsdo.org/about-ihtsdo/collaborative-space/ . 3. To my knowledge there is no formal IHTSDO proposal for a query language to express Refset
IHTSDO meeting - term binding presentation available
Hi, I can add that the workflows are possible to customize, so it is up to each user (or the organization the user works for) to create and/or select the workflows to use. Greetings, Mikael -Original Message- From: openehr-technical-boun...@chime.ucl.ac.uk [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Michael.Lawley at csiro.au Sent: den 6 maj 2010 22:53 To: openehr-technical at chime.ucl.ac.uk Cc: openehr-clinical at openehr.org; openehr-clinical at chime.ucl.ac.uk; openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: RE: IHTSDO meeting - term binding presentation available Yes, the workflow stuff is just a tool feature. The RF2 spec is merely a file format and the spec has nothing to say about how such files may/should be generated. Regarding the clinical metadata elements you mention, these are not defined as part of RF2, but it should be possible to represent them using RF2 as it was designed to be an extensible format. michael Dr Michael Lawley Principal Research Scientist The Australia e-Health Research Centre http://aehrc.com/ +61 7 3253 3609; 0432 832 067 From: openehr-technical-boun...@chime.ucl.ac.uk [openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Ian McNicoll [Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com] Sent: Thursday, 6 May 2010 11:16 PM To: For openEHR technical discussions Cc: openehr-clinical at openehr.org; openehr-clinical at chime.ucl.ac.uk; openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: Re: IHTSDO meeting - term binding presentation available Thanks Michael, Can I ask if the workflow/process elements of the Workbench are regarded as separate from the Refset 2 specifications, or within other offical IHTSDO specs? Or is this just intended as a local feature of the workbench? Although the Refset2 sepcifications define a greate deal of 'metadata', as far as I can tell , other than Refset name, this is almost wholly technical in nature and clinical metadata elements e.g use, misuse, purpose, authoring details are not defined - is this correct? Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.commailto:ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com ian at mcmi.co.ukmailto:ian at mcmi.co.uk Clinical Analyst Ocean Informatics openEHR Archetype Editorial Group Member BCS Primary Health Care SG Group www.phcsg.orghttp://www.phcsg.org / BCS Health Scotland On 6 May 2010 13:22, Michael.Lawley at csiro.au wrote: I would add to Eric's point 3 that (based on the content of an IHTSDO webinar) the workflow/process implemented in the IHTSDO workbench involves an explicit manual approval step for every item in the generated static refset. I don't know how/if there is any special support for dealing with re-generating the refset based on a new SNOMED release or a modified set of specification queries. m Dr Michael Lawley Principal Research Scientist The Australia e-Health Research Centre http://aehrc.com/ +61 7 3253 3609; 0432 832 067 From: openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.ukmailto:openehr-technical-bounces at c hime.ucl.ac.uk [openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.ukmailto:openehr-technical-bounces@ chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Eric Browne [eric.browne at montagesystems.com.aumailto:eric.browne at montagesystems.com.au ] Sent: Thursday, 6 May 2010 9:20 PM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Cc: For openEHR clinical discussions; Openehr-Technical Subject: Re: IHTSDO meeting - term binding presentation available Hi Sebastian, If I can give my own perspective on this, having been peripherally involved for some time.. 1. Unfortunately, the IHTSDO (www.ihtsdo.orghttp://www.ihtsdo.org), who is responsible for the ongoing management and development of SNOMED CT, is still a somewhat closed and traditional standards development organisation. It has no publicly accessible wiki of resources ? la openEHR. It does, however, have a substantial community of individuals from member countries and affiliate organisations and several collaborative websites and mailing lists where ideas, contributions, new specifications etc. are documented and evolve. I would guess that the majority of participants are either active in other standards development organisations, or staff/affiliates of member nation health informatics programs such as the UK's NHS Connecting for Health Program, Canada's Infoway, Australia's National E-Health Transition Authority, etc. 2. For many years prior to IHTSDO taking over SNOMED CT from the College of American Pathologists, SNOMED CT embraced a mechanism and format for producing subsets of SNOMED CT. About 18 months ago, proposals for a new SNOMED release format and a new Reference Set format (to replace the old subset mechanism) emerged and evolved. These two proposals morphed into a single umbrella specification called Release Format 2, which has now
IHTSDO meeting - term binding presentation available
Hi All, As written below most of IHTSDO:s activities are currently performed inside IHTSDO:s Collaborative space (also known as Basecamp). This Collaborative space is a legacy system from before IHTSDO acquired SNOMED?CT and probably not the best system due to the current needs, but the system is still there because of lack of time to change system. However, there are now ongoing discussions and there seems to be a new project initiated to supplement or replace the current Collaborative space to make it easier for people outside IHTSDO:s groups to get information and share resources. More information about how to get access to the Collaborative space is, as written below, available at http://www.ihtsdo.org/about-ihtsdo/collaborative-space/. The currently existing Special Interest Groups at the Collaborative space are: Anesthesia Special Interest Group Concept Model Special Interest Group Education Special Interest Group Implementation SIG International Pathology Laboratory Medicine SIG Machine Human Readable Concept Model Project Mapping SNOMED CT to ICD-10 Project Nursing Special Interest Group Pharmacy Special Interest Group Primary Care Special Interest Group Translation Special Interest Group And the currently existing project groups are: Anatomy Model Project Collaborative Editing Project Group Enhanced Release Format, Interchange Format RefSet PG Event, Condition and Episode Model Project Workbench RefSet Module Project Observable and Investigation Model Project Organism Infectious Disease Model Project Pre-coordination Roadmap Project Request Submission Project Substance Hierarchy Redesign Project Translation Standard Processes Project There are also a affiliate forum. Greetings, Mikael -Original Message- From: openehr-clinical-boun...@chime.ucl.ac.uk [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Eric Browne Sent: den 6 maj 2010 13:20 To: For openEHR clinical discussions Cc: For openEHR clinical discussions; Openehr-Technical Subject: Re: IHTSDO meeting - term binding presentation available Hi Sebastian, If I can give my own perspective on this, having been peripherally involved for some time.. 1. Unfortunately, the IHTSDO (www.ihtsdo.org), who is responsible for the ongoing management and development of SNOMED CT, is still a somewhat closed and traditional standards development organisation. It has no publicly accessible wiki of resources ? la openEHR. It does, however, have a substantial community of individuals from member countries and affiliate organisations and several collaborative websites and mailing lists where ideas, contributions, new specifications etc. are documented and evolve. I would guess that the majority of participants are either active in other standards development organisations, or staff/affiliates of member nation health informatics programs such as the UK's NHS Connecting for Health Program, Canada's Infoway, Australia's National E-Health Transition Authority, etc. 2. For many years prior to IHTSDO taking over SNOMED CT from the College of American Pathologists, SNOMED CT embraced a mechanism and format for producing subsets of SNOMED CT. About 18 months ago, proposals for a new SNOMED release format and a new Reference Set format (to replace the old subset mechanism) emerged and evolved. These two proposals morphed into a single umbrella specification called Release Format 2, which has now reached Draft for Trial Use status within the IHTSDO. One of the specification documents covers Reference Set formats and is available in part 2 of RF2 at: http://www.ihtsdo.org/publications/draft-for-review-and-trial-use/ . This draft specification includes support for language refsets, which may be of particular interest to you. Access to the collaborative space where these documents are made available is described at: http://www.ihtsdo.org/about-ihtsdo/collaborative-space/ . 3. To my knowledge there is no formal IHTSDO proposal for a query language to express Refset membership specifications. However, the IHTSDO Terminology Workbench does incorporate quite a sophisticated mechanism for building refsets using an underlying ( and evolving) query-based expression language. Note: these refsets do not necessarily need to be specific to SNOMED. The refset specifications, however, are currently designed to construct static files for distribution alongside the SNOMED core and national extension files, rather than for producing dynamically evaluated termsets for local needs, as might be supported for openEHR templates, say. eric On 2010-05-06, at 5:48 PM, Sebastian Garde wrote: Hi Thomas, do you know if there is a formal way of how RefSets (=the resulting Snomed CT codes etc.) and the RefSet query (=the query on Snomed CT to get to the RefSet) are expressed and shared? Similar to what is described here but based on RefSets: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/term/Ocean+Terminology+Query+Language+%2 8TQL%29 I
Medinfo 2010 openEHR tutorial collision
Hi! The recently published preliminary Medinfo 2010 programme at... http://www.medinfo2010.org/docs/Draft_Conference_Programme.pdf ...lists two openEHR tutorials in parallel... 1. OpenEHR I - IV (Saturday 11 September 9:00-17:00) 2. EHR implementation tips I-II (Saturday 11 September 9:00-12:30) If I understand the content of the tutorials correctly, these are renamed versions of the ones mentioned on... http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MedInfo+2010+-+South+Africa 1. Clinical Modeling Workshop Proposal 2. The openEHR developers' workshop If so, then I think it would be advantageous for somebody interested in openEHR to first attend 1 and then if they have a technical implementation interest to also attend 2. Is there an interest among the openEHR community in asking the organizing comitte to move #2 to sunday the 12:th instead or does it not matter for most of you? I'll send a copy of this mail to info at medinfo2010.org as an early notice, and then sum up the response from the lists and/or comments on http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MedInfo+2010+-+South+Africa in a follow up mail later. In addition to the reason above, about #2 partially building on understanding possible to gain in #1, it is also rather tricky flight-wise, but hopefully possible, for some of us involved in #2 to be there in time on the morning the 11:th. Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733
