Re: Term bindings in archetypes and templates
For those of you interested in the 'problems' within Snomed as an ontology, here (http://precedings.nature.com/documents/3465/version/1) you can find a good and recent article describing them. This doesn't mean we shouldn't use Snomed, but knowing where the problems are is helpful to find solutions as Thomas already stated. Cheers, Stef Op 11 mrt 2010, om 11:06 heeft Mikael Nyström het volgende geschreven: > Hi Michael, > > I agree that post-coordination is useful when mapping to SNOMED CT > and it > works well in many cases. However, to be able to create > post-coordinated > concepts the pre-coordinated "building blocks" have to already exist > in the > terminology, which are not always the case. There are sometimes also > harder > to reuse information mapped to post-coordinated concepts than > post-coordinated concepts, because the hierarchies around the > post-coordinated concepts are generally not so tailored for the > post-coordinated concepts as the hierarchies around pre-coordinated > concepts > are. > > It is also only SNOMED CT and a few other terminology systems that > allow > post-coordination, so for the majority of terminology systems > post-coordination isn't possible to use. > > My view is therefore still that creating archetypes and the > terminology > bindings in parallel is better than fist create the archetypes and > afterwards add terminology bindings. > > Greetings, > Mikael > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: openehr-technical-bounces@chime.ucl.ac.uk > [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces@chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of > Michael.Lawley@csiro.au > Sent: den 11 mars 2010 01:46 > To: openehr-technical@chime.ucl.ac.uk > Subject: Re: Term bindings in archetypes and templates > > > Hi Mikael, > > You may be interested in our mapping tool, Snapper, which is designed > to > tackle this problem for mapping to (not from) SNOMED CT. It provides > extensive support for mapping to post-coordinated expressions where > single-concept maps are not possible and can be used to create > unofficial > extensions to SNOMED CT. > > More details and a short screen-cast are on our website > http://aehrc.com/snapper > > Cheers, > michael > > -- > Dr Michael Lawley > Principal Research Scientist > The Australia e-Health Research Centre http://aehrc.com/ > +61 7 3253 3609; 0432 832 067 > > "Ein Flügel und einen Schnabel machen kein Vogel" > > > On 11/03/10 9:49 AM, "Mikael Nyström" <mikael.nystrom@liu.se> wrote: > > Thomas Beale wrote: > >> On 10/03/2010 22:16, Mikael Nyström wrote: > >>> I belong to a group that, except for openEHR related research, also >>> do >>> research about terminology systems and terminology systems mapping. >>> During mapping from one terminology system to another terminology >>> system is it quite common to be unable to map properly, because the >>> two >>> terminology systems have divided the domain in different ways. This >>> problem appears even when mapping to SNOMED CT, which have a broad >>> coverage and a concept model allowing a broad set of relationships. >>> My >>> view is that the same problem will appear when finalized archetypes >>> are >>> bound to existing terminology systems. > >> it will certainly appear. The question is: for those archetype nodes >> that >> it is useful to bind to terminology (likely to be 10% or less), how >> close >> is the match? For example, in labs, it should be nearly spot on. For >> anatomy, it should be pretty close. For diseases, the disease >> concept in >> an archetype will assume that it is coded in the first place by >> terminology, so the only problem there is mapping problems from ICD >> to SCT >> etc. I think we need to look at the actual size of the concrete >> problem, >> not its theoretical worst case. > > I agree that we have to wait and see how much problems we will get. > That was > also my reason to reply to Sebastian's e-mail which told that there > is no > problem to add terminology bindings after the archetypes are > finalized. > > However, I didn't refer to "theoretical worst case". I referred to > actual > problems that have appeared for us during both our research work and > in our > national SNOMED CT project in Sweden. > > Greetings, > Mikael > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical@openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical@openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical@openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical