An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110224/9d18b748/attachment.html
On 24/02/2011 02:39, Diego Bosc? wrote:
I vote for that :)
2011/2/24 Hugh Lesliehugh.leslie at oceaninformatics.com:
*
*
some time ago I added this page, on more or less the same topic:
http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/term/Terminology+Identification -
please feel free to update with
WHat are the rules for establishing new URNs?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xml
and RFC 3406
I think a well designed IHTSDO urn specification could be useful.
urn:ihtsdo:SCT-AU:20100131+:refset:135394005
etc
This doesn't help out with other terminology sets
I know it is on ADL specs, but why limit it to an URI? Second approach
could also be used to identify a subset
I understand the URI need, but I can think more than one occasion
where you have a defined termset and no URI for it
2011/2/18 Peter Gummer peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com:
Cati
Diego Bosc? wrote:
I know it is on ADL specs, but why limit it to an URI? Second approach
could also be used to identify a subset
The URI approach is able to specify subsets, Diego. Here is an
example, generated by the current Archetype Editor beta release
(available from
If that is the valid way of defining in an URI form, it is
undocumented. the example should be put on the ADL specs.
And again not that difficult to support both kind of bindings. In my
opinion, ORGANIZATIONX::DrugFormSubset is way more human
readable and needs the same degree of 'computer
Diego Bosc? wrote:
And again not that difficult to support both kind of bindings. In my
opinion, ORGANIZATIONX::DrugFormSubset is way more human
readable and needs the same degree of 'computer interpretation' than
the URI terminology:...
I would agree that the TERMINOLOGY::subset form
Diego Bosc? wrote:
and we have also to deal with spaces!
terminology:Snomed?v=2002?s=Antiallergenic drugs (product)
Spaces are illegal in URIs. The correct form for the subset would be:
subset=Antiallergenic%20drugs%20(product)
- Peter
I'm confused as to whether the intention here was really URI, URL or
URN?
My understanding was that the use of DV_URI for term binding in archetypes was
more in the vein of global identification of resources (more URN)
rather than actually telling the software how to get to the resource
(ala
Just to clarify some more, my contention is that you cannot
look inside a arbitrary URI to pick out values without
looking at the formal 'scheme' dependent spec.
So in the case of a 'http' URI, we can read the spec and know
what the bits mean - _for the purposes of fetching data
from web servers
and also, binding to URL seems like a bad decision for archetype
maintainability
2011/2/21 Andrew Patterson andrewpatto at gmail.com:
Just to clarify some more, my contention is that you cannot
look inside a arbitrary URI to pick out values without
looking at the formal 'scheme' dependent
://twitter.com/ppazos
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:42:31 +1100
Subject: Re: constraint binding error
From: andrewpatto at gmail.com
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
Just to clarify some more, my contention is that you cannot
look inside a arbitrary URI to pick out values without
looking
- we need some way to define/specify what is the canonical form of a
URI/URN, we must agree in a terminology of names (of terminologies :D) and
subsets.
? - Snomed is the same as SNOMED? or ICD10 is the same as ICD 10 or CIE 10
(CIE = ICD in spanish)?
- we cannot rely of one tool
will be inconsistent.
--
Kind regards,
A/C Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:42:31 +1100
Subject: Re: constraint binding error
From: andrewpatto
/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
From: Michael.Lawley at csiro.au
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:46:43 +1100
Subject: Re: constraint binding error
Surely spaces should not be an issue here as these strings do not really
identify anything. Instead, one
Indeed, in Australia, it would be ICD-10-AM but the version would correspond to
the particular Edition you're using. Hence my example URI still included the
string SNOMED so that one knows how to interpret the v=, s=, m= elements.
Clearly every standard terminology is going to have it's own
this relates to the question of how SNOMED represents Ref set ids. In
SCT concept space, all 'concept' ids are unique for the whole planet,
with special bits being used to distinguish concepts and ref sets within
national or other 'extensions' (i.e. outside the international release).
So the
On 21/02/2011 02:42, Andrew Patterson wrote:
Just to clarify some more, my contention is that you cannot
look inside a arbitrary URI to pick out values without
looking at the formal 'scheme' dependent spec.
So in the case of a 'http' URI, we can read the spec and know
what the bits mean -
On 21/02/2011 03:28, Andrew Patterson wrote:
Would like to see an agreed upon list of canonical URI/URN for the
terminology bindings that people are using in practice with real
current terminology sources so that we can get some harmonization.
me too. If someone wants to come up with a simple
Thomas Beale wrote:
What probably does make sense anyway is to relax the spec in ADL 1.5
to allow both forms (and one day, probably we get rid of the URI
form). Does that seem reasonable?
This would mean, then, a revision to section 8.3.1 of the AOM 1.5
spec. Currently it says that
at openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of
michael.law...@csiro.au
Sent: 21 February 2011 03:47
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
Subject: Re: constraint binding error
Surely spaces should not be an issue here as these strings do not really
identify anything
On 21/02/2011 04:14, pablo pazos wrote:
Hi Michael,
Not every terminology version is a date. In ICD 10, the version is
10. I think the version to be a valid date is not a problem here.
*
*
most people consider ICD10 as simply a different terminology from ICD9.
There are variants like
I had better be more precise here ;-)
'proper' URIs or URNs may be the correct approach. URLs almost certainly
are not. So the spec might remain correct technically, just that the
guidance for what URIs can be used should probably change.
- thomas
On 21/02/2011 11:06, Peter Gummer wrote:
: constraint binding error
On 21/02/2011 04:14, pablo pazos wrote:
Hi Michael,
Not every terminology version is a date. In ICD 10, the version is 10. I
think the version to be a valid date is not a problem here.
most people consider ICD10 as simply a different terminology from ICD9
/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:36:12 +
From: thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
Subject: Re: constraint binding error
On 21/02/2011 04:14, pablo
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
Subject: Re: constraint binding error
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:56:11 +1100
Diego Bosc? wrote:
I know it is on ADL specs, but why limit it to an URI? Second approach
could also be used to identify a subset
The URI approach is able to specify subsets, Diego
Cati Mart?nez wrote:
[ac0001] = [CONSULTA::1]
The ADL parser throws an error with this last one. is it right?
Hi Cati,
That last one is not a valid constraint binding. It has to be a valid
URI.
- Peter
Hello,
somebody knows which is the correct type of a constraint binding? In
all the examples I have checked and in the ADL grammar (adl.jj), it is
specified by using an URL.
for instance:
[?ac0001?] = http://terminology.org?query_id=12345
but I have seen in other archetypes something like
28 matches
Mail list logo
