Terminology bindings ... again

GF gfrer at luna.nl
Mon Mar 12 07:51:03 EDT 2018


As far as I remember this separation was the result of agreements between LOINC and SNOMED.

When I was looking for codes that could be attached to nodes in the archetype I was referred to LOINC.
SNOMED made it clear that they were not the party that could help me.

In a way it can make sense.
SNOMED has a real ontology behind it. And is using the Open World assumption.
LOINC is NOT an terminology but as I see it a Classification with rules and a syntax.

LOINC and Archetypes are really Closed World artefacts.

Gerard   Freriks
+31 620347088
  gfrer at luna.nl

Kattensingel  20
2801 CA Gouda
the Netherlands

> On 12 Mar 2018, at 09:12, Birger Haarbrandt <birger.haarbrandt at plri.de> wrote:
> Hi Gerard,
> are you able to provide more information on the reasoning that led to this decision? Maybe links to documents or any other insights? This would be quite interesting for our acitivities in Germany.
> Best,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20180312/11df2121/attachment.html>

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list