RE: 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-bounces@chime.ucl.ac.uk
[mailto:openehr-technical-bounces@chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of
Michael.Lawley@csiro.au
Sent: den 6 maj 2010 22:53
To: openehr-technical@chime.ucl.ac.uk
Cc: openehr-clinical@openehr.org; openehr-clinical@chime.ucl.ac.uk;
openehr-technical@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-bounces@chime.ucl.ac.uk
[openehr-technical-bounces@chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Ian McNicoll
[Ian.McNicoll@oceaninformatics.com]
Sent: Thursday, 6 May 2010 11:16 PM
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Cc: openehr-clinical@openehr.org; openehr-clinical@chime.ucl.ac.uk;
openehr-technical@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@oceaninformatics.com<mailto:ian.mcnicoll@oceaninformatics.com>
ian@mcmi.co.uk<mailto:ian@mcmi.co.uk>
Clinical Analyst Ocean Informatics openEHR Archetype Editorial Group
Member BCS Primary Health Care SG Group
www.phcsg.org<http://www.phcsg.org>
/ BCS Health Scotland
On 6 May 2010 13:22, <Michael.Lawley@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@chime.ucl.ac.uk<mailto:openehr-technical-bounces@c
hime.ucl.ac.uk>
[openehr-technical-bounces@chime.ucl.ac.uk<mailto:openehr-technical-bounces@
chime.ucl.ac.uk>] On Behalf Of Eric Browne
[eric.browne@montagesystems.com.au<mailto:eric.browne@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.org<http://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 à 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 agree that RefSets are a good way forward, but they need to be
available, reusable and sharable, etc.
>
> Sebastian
>
> Thomas Beale wrote:
>>
>> I attended the IHTSDO meeting just finished in Copenhagen. Things
>> look
pretty good for where SNOMED CT is going generally - the RF2 technical
infrastructure seems relatively well designed. There is a lot of
activity in
content modeling, the IHTSDO workbench and many other areas relevant to
openEHR. Converely, I believe openEHR will be very important to make
SNOMED
CT work in many places, since it will be via archetypes, templates and
associated ref sets that information systems will be able to connect to
terminology in a disciplined way. I believe that ref sets are the
future of
SNOMED CT (and any terminology for that matter) in use in real systems.
>>
>> I was asked to present a view from openEHR about 'terminology
>> binding',
i.e. connecting terminology and information models. My presentation is
on
this page http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/term/Terminology+Binding
>> or see the following direct links:
>> ? PDF -
http://www.openehr.org/wiki/download/attachments/5997267/openEHR_term_bindin
g_IHTSDO_april_2010.pdf
>> ? PPTX -
http://www.openehr.org/wiki/download/attachments/5997267/openEHR_term_bindin
g_IHTSDO_april_2010.pptx
>> I hope this is useful. I will continue to document IHTSDO-related
thoughts on the openEHR wiki, and I encourage others to do the same.
>>
>> - thomas beale
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>>
>> openEHR-technical@openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-technical@openehr.org>
>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical@openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-clinical@openehr.org>
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-technical@openehr.org>
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@openehr.org<mailto: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