SNOMED in CKM

Bert Verhees bert.verhees at rosa.nl
Tue Apr 25 02:03:11 EDT 2017


I thought so too, I even asked someone at ihtsdo but when you read the
license coming with the SNOMED-CT browser, it made me doubt. Take a look at
it yourself, I believe it is point 4 ( I am on my mobile right now and it
is inconvenient to look now)

Bert

Op di 25 apr. 2017 06:59 schreef Pablo Pazos <pablo.pazos at cabolabs.com>:

> In terms of license, I don't think using archetypes that reference snomed
> is a problem. The thing is when you want to support snomed in your system,
> having or not archetypes doesn't makes the difference IMO.
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl>
> wrote:
>
>> 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_-4558998169760756438_m_725265850614292706_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 <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>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> openEHR-clinical mailing list
>>>> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
>>>>
>>>> http://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/fbfcb3b5/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list