Usage of Compositoin.Category

Heath Frankel heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com
Fri Mar 4 03:45:10 EST 2016


Hi Bjorn,
How did you come up with the concept id of 434? We need to be careful about assigning our own concept ids, we really need openEHR to assign these, I suggest through the SEC process initiated by a Jira card.

At present we have two terminology files, as you know we have agreed to use the java implementation's terminology xml file as the interim standard representation but there are already concept ids allocated in the Archetype Editor terminology file which existed before the terminology specification and the java implementation. In this case it looks like 434 is safe to use as it is not assigned to an openEHR concept in the Archetype Editor, but 435 is allocated to an openEHR concept in the setting group, which appears to be missing from the terminology specification and the java implementation xml.

Let's start using the SEC process for managing openehr terminology concepts.

Regards

Heath

From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Bjørn Næss
Sent: Friday, 4 March 2016 6:46 PM
To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org>
Cc: Team Selecta <teamselecta at dips.no>
Subject: SV: Usage of Compositoin.Category

I just added a «composition category» on my fork of the terminology project.

https://github.com/bjornna/terminology/commit/600dec3058cd85f9db3e5859d6bffa7f01a45edf


<group name="composition category">
                               <concept id="431" rubric="persistent"/>
                               <concept id="433" rubric="event"/>
+                             <concept id="434" rubric="report"/>
                </group>

Any comments?

Vennlig hilsen
Bjørn Næss
Produktansvarlig
DIPS ASA

Mobil +47 93 43 29 10<tel:+47%2093%2043%2029%2010>

Fra: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] På vegne av Bjørn Næss
Sendt: onsdag 17. februar 2016 22.00
Til: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org>
Emne: Usage of Compositoin.Category

We are discussing the use of Composition.Category which is a DV_CODED_TEXT.
There is a terminology:

<group name="composition category">
                               <concept id="431" rubric="persistent"/>
                               <concept id="433" rubric="event"/>
                </group>

Is it required to use only these categories or could an application set any DV_CODED_TEXT?

I think it would be ok to allow any category in this.

To be concrete:
The use-case is discharge summaries. These are Compositions which only ("mostly") contains links to existing entries. We will be using links but since the Composition should be transferred to another health provider it must be serialized and validated against an template. Technically this Compostions contains a lot of entries which is "link to self".

The idea we are considering is to introduce a category for these Compositions. The content will not be part of AQL results for normal use-cases. But IF you ask explicit for these categories you will be able to query for discharge summaries which contains body weight above 120 kg.
 If we only add the references as links it will not be possible to add them into forms and neither use a Template to validate the content. This is the reason we are "thinking out of the box".

Any comments on this?


Best regards
Bjørn Næss
Product Owner - Arena EHR
DIPS ASA

Mobil +47 93 43 29 10<tel:+47%2093%2043%2029%2010>

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.6189 / Virus Database: 4537/11743 - Release Date: 03/03/16
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20160304/b6bafe0d/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-technical mailing list