Re: Problem with constraint_binding

Op 22-3-2017 om 12:31 schreef Thomas Beale: Just catching up on this conversation - I am unclear on why the original solution Bert proposed here isn't correct. What this says is: * for the ac0001 term constraint in the model, allow the term to be from one of ETDA or ICD10 I think,

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

Just catching up on this conversation - I am unclear on why the original solution Bert proposed here isn't correct. What this says is: * for the ac0001 term constraint in the model, allow the term to be from one of ETDA or ICD10 Since this is set at the archetype level, it is stated as

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

Op 21-3-2017 om 22:34 schreef Heath Frankel: You don't need to constrain the TERM_MAPPINGS to use it. Regards Heath What if I want a specific number of Term-mappings? (I want two term-mappings) What if I want a specific terminologies to be used? (that was also part of my question) How

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

They appear to be assigned to R1.1 but not progressed to a CR. Heath From: Heath Frankel Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2017 10:52 PM To: For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org>> Subject: RE: Problem with constraint_

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

penehr.org>] *On Behalf Of *Bert Verhees > *Sent:* Thursday, 16 March 2017 8:31 AM > *To:* For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org > > > *Subject:* Re: Problem with constraint_binding > > > > We are considering that Diego, the

RE: Problem with constraint_binding

cal@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org>> Subject: RE: Problem with constraint_binding Perhaps I have come in at the wrong point of the conversation and missed the original question but I believe that the SEC has already approved a change (or at least got a change prop

RE: Problem with constraint_binding

> Subject: Re: Problem with constraint_binding We are considering that Diego, the fact is that the customer wishes to code the name -item two times. Both coding - systems are not easy to map and the mapping cannot be calculated easily by software. So we need two Dv_coded_text's to car

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

Thanks Peter, I must have missed it. blush blush (missing my regular workstation/email client) It is indeed the solution. Sorry for that Best regards Bert On 17-03-17 14:42, Peter Gummer wrote: On 17 Mar 2017, at 22:39, Bert Verhees wrote: The several countries

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

On 17 Mar 2017, at 22:39, Bert Verhees wrote: > > The several countries have independent organizations, and the overall > organization cannot enforce a common terminology. There are two terminologies > in this case, and those two terminologies cannot be mapped easily,

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

It is a customer requirement. It is a real life problem. It is not very helpful to me to have discussions about the good, bad or ugly of solutions. But, of course, go ahead for your own interests. It is about an international organization which processes data from several countries. The

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:43:33AM +0100, GF wrote: > Any item in an archetype potentially has: > - an ad-hoc, locally defined, display name > - an official canonical name in a specific language domain > - and, in order to disambiguate it, an unique code in > - a specific

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

Yes. Any item in an archetype potentially has: - an ad-hoc, locally defined, display name - an official canonical name in a specific language domain - and, in order to disambiguate it, an unique code in - a specific terminology/classification domain Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

I'm not sure Diego. I guess so. We definitely need to be able to specify at template level how/if any code bindings should be handled at runtime. I suspect this might need some sort of rules that are a bit more complex than just a simple constraint. This conversation might be a chance to tease

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

I assume that mappings could also contain constraint bindings right? 2017-03-15 23:20 GMT+01:00 Ian McNicoll : > Hi Bert, > > A dv_coded text can carry a single defining_code but as many code mappings > as you wish. This makes sense to me as I would always expect one code to

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

Hi, Multiple codes create the problem of deciding which one is ‘the truth’. One code needs be declared to be ‘the truth’. But… ‘The truth’ depends on the context the code is used in. So how can one declare what the clinical/administrative/research context is? And… ‘subject’ has ‘associated

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

Hi, I need to defer this discussion to next Monday. I will come back to this. Thanks all for your input. Best regards Bert Op wo 15 mrt. 2017 om 23:22 schreef Ian McNicoll : > Hi Bert, > > A dv_coded text can carry a single defining_code but as many code mappings > as you

RE: Problem with constraint_binding

a Leao<mailto:bfl...@terra.com.br> Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2017 7:10 AM To: For openEHR clinical discussions<mailto:openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org> Subject: Re: Problem with constraint_binding Perhaps the best solution for the time being is to add an additional diagnosis component

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

Perhaps the best solution for the time being is to add an additional diagnosis component with the secondary terminology binding that might be used. This is not so common and would need a BR specialization. Beatriz > On Mar 15, 2017, at 6:31 PM, Bert Verhees wrote: >

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

We are considering that Diego, the fact is that the customer wishes to code the name -item two times. Both coding - systems are not easy to map and the mapping cannot be calculated easily by software. So we need two Dv_coded_text's to carry the codes, and only one value to carry the name. The

Re: Problem with constraint_binding

Hi Bert This is correct. If you were to add those constraints in a specialised archetype, at run-time the submitted term in the defining_code attribute would have to come from one of the two terminologies specified. The constraint can define multiple potential terminologies but only one

Problem with constraint_binding

Dear readers, I have a problem and I want to ask your advise. The problem is that I want to use openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem_diagnosis.v1 which is in CKM. In that archetype is the item "Problem/Diagnosis name", which is of type DV_TEXT. We want to use it as DV_CODED_TEXT, because we want to