SNOMED in CKM

Bert Verhees bert.verhees at rosa.nl
Tue Apr 25 00:39:54 EDT 2017


But I think that it is not allowed to use SNOMED-CT in bindings when you're
not explicitly permitted to do so.

Bert

Op di 25 apr. 2017 06:34 schreef Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl>:

> I agree completely with you, Pablo
>
> Best regards
> Bert
>
> Op di 25 apr. 2017 06:24 schreef Pablo Pazos <pablo.pazos at cabolabs.com>:
>
>> Hi Bert,
>>
>> Maybe my wording is the issue here since I don't disagree with what you
>> said.
>>
>> Take into account that I use the word "might" on every sentence, as the
>> indication of an ability. Never said that 1. applies to all contexts, or 2.
>> that those are hard rules. In those cases I would use "must" instead of
>> "might".
>>
>> With that being said, when a SNOMED CT code is referenced directly as a
>> bind to an archetype node, the purpose is to add definition to the
>> archetype, not to use the code as part of the record. That can be done, but
>> is not the purpose of having term bindings on the archetype. That is
>> explained on the specs somewhere, is not my idea :)
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Pablo.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Op 17-4-2017 om 23:57 schreef Pablo Pazos:
>>>
>>> Currently the use of specific SNOMED CT codes in archetypes is for
>>> further definition / specification of the clinical concepts.
>>>
>>> To use SNOMED CT at runtime, external constraints are used in the form
>>> of URIs, that might point to a SNOMED domain or specific subset. If the
>>> subset is local, the archetype might not be the place of setting the
>>> constraints since archetypes should be general purpose & globally valid.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pablo, I have a slightly different opinion on your statement. But first
>>> I want to emphasize that it is generally a good guide line what you
>>> express. But I disagree with your way of expressing strongly.
>>>
>>> In the case of local subset you are right. But in cases of non-local
>>> subsets, all SNOMED information can be used globally, depending on
>>> licensing.
>>> But even in case of local subsets, ADL offers the freedom the create
>>> archetypes for a very special small local domain.
>>> There is nothing wrong with that, if you need it, then you need it.
>>> Although, it is better to look for a wider usability or of there is already
>>> something similar.
>>>
>>> People can have good reasons to add SNOMED in archetypes, in
>>> term-bindings, or, for example, in restricting hierarchies in SNOMED.
>>> But AOM is not that far right now that it can fully extensively use
>>> SNOMED. And ADL does not yet allow expressions in termbinding
>>>
>>> So there is some way to go, but denying the need by stating that it is
>>> not right to do so does not seem right to me.
>>> It is on people to decide what is right. OpenEHR should facilitate, not
>>> dictate. That has always been a part of base thinking.
>>>
>>> I think the next generation  HealthICT will use the full extend of
>>> SNOMED, including post-coordinated expressions, hierarchies, subsets, etc.
>>> I hope OpenEHR will step on board of that train very soon.
>>> This will surely change thinking about archetypes, CKM, and so on.
>>>
>>> But good scotch needs time to grow up. ;-)
>>> But be careful not to throw away scotch which will be very good in a few
>>> years.
>>>
>>> A template might be the right place of setting those constraints
>>> (specific, locally valid).
>>>
>>> I disagree with this one also. There can be disadvantages against using
>>> specific constraints in templates instead of archetypes.
>>> It must be reconsidered from case to case.
>>>
>>> It has to do with code-reuse and code-maintenance, so called: the
>>> DRY-rule (Don't Repeat Yourself).
>>> If a specific extra constraint on an archetype reoccurs inside a
>>> organization in more templates, then it is in my opinion better to
>>> specialize that archetype, because then there is one single point of
>>> maintenance.
>>> The alternative to do it in a template every time, gives you more points
>>> of maintenance on the same specific part.
>>>
>>> The DRY rule is very well-known and for good reason:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself
>>>
>>> An important part of the power of OpenEHR is in the flexibility which
>>> offers solutions for exceptional situations.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Bert Verhees
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Pablo.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I needed to clean up archetypes from SNOMED bindings because of
>>>> license-reasons, I "grepped" the local directory from CKM.
>>>> To my surprise I found there SNOMED bindings in over 50 archetypes.
>>>> This can, I think, be a problem for countries which have no SNOMED
>>>> license.
>>>> Or is the opinion that SNOMED is allowed in archetypes even in
>>>> non-member-countries.
>>>>
>>>> Bert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> openEHR-clinical mailing list
>>>> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
>>> Cel:(00598) 99 043 145 <099%20043%20145>
>>> Skype: cabolabs
>>> <http://cabolabs.com/>
>>> http://www.cabolabs.com
>>> pablo.pazos at cabolabs.com
>>> Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj>
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virusvrij.
>>> www.avg.com
>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>> <#m_7413263216575621585_m_9164379359524070019_m_61185112423032015_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> openEHR-clinical mailing listopenEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> openEHR-clinical mailing list
>>> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
>> Cel:(00598) 99 043 145
>> Skype: cabolabs
>> <http://cabolabs.com/>
>> http://www.cabolabs.com
>> pablo.pazos at cabolabs.com
>> Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj>
>> _______________________________________________
>> openEHR-clinical mailing list
>> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20170425/513d0d05/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list