Difference between revisions of "ADL Terminology Binding"

From CIMI
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "Proposal for ADL Terminology Binding: # '''Value Set Identifiers should be representable as URI's''' ## ''' ''All'' CIMI authored value sets will derive their identifiers and...")
 
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Proposal for ADL Terminology Binding:
+
= Proposal for ADL Terminology Binding =
 
+
== General ==
 
# '''Value Set Identifiers should be representable as URI's'''
 
# '''Value Set Identifiers should be representable as URI's'''
## ''' ''All'' CIMI authored value sets will derive their identifiers and URIs from the SNOMED CT CIMI namespace.''' This applies whether the content of the value set is in SNOMED CT space or not.
+
## ''All'' CIMI authored value sets will derive their identifiers and URIs from the SNOMED CT CIMI namespace.  This applies whether the content of the value set is in SNOMED CT space or not.
## ''' Existing value sets will derive their URI's from the URI construction rules (ref) '''
+
## Existing value sets will derive their URI's from the URI construction rules (ref)
 
# '''The 'canonical' and exchange format for value sets will be CTS2. '''  
 
# '''The 'canonical' and exchange format for value sets will be CTS2. '''  
 
## "Extensional" value sets will be represented as <code>ResolvedValueSet</code> constructs.  Optionally, "Extensional" value sets may be represented as <code>ValueSetDefinition<code> constructs with
 
## "Extensional" value sets will be represented as <code>ResolvedValueSet</code> constructs.  Optionally, "Extensional" value sets may be represented as <code>ValueSetDefinition<code> constructs with
 +
## Mappings and tools will be provided for translation between CTS2 and the HL7 Terminfo Extension formats and the IHTSDO value set definition grammar.
 +
 +
== dADL ==
 +
# Coded Terms - We need to provide an additional section that associates <code>terminology_id</code> with a URI. A separate issue is whether the CIMI group wants to establish a separate namespace for the terminology_identifiers themselves - whether they want to assert that SNOMED CT will ''always'' be identified by the terminology identifier "snomed_ct" or whether they want to use more of the approach used by XML - where every document has a declarations section that maps document specific identifiers (e.g. <nowiki>xmlns:snomed_ct="http://snomed.info/sct/900000000000207008"</nowiki>). The FHIR group is trying to take the more global approach, but Mayo's experience has been that it is hard enough to settle on a URI, let alone decide whether "SCT", "SNOMED CT", "snm", etc. is the official representation.  '''Note:''' ''IF'' the decision is made to take the global approach, what CIMI would actually be doing is establishing a namespace.  We would recommend that a scoping namespace be provided so that the world outside CIMI (yes - there is such a thing ;-) ) can formally say "snomed_ct" as it is defined by CIMI. 
 +
 +
== cADL ==
 +
 +
== Ontology ==
 +
# ''' Global Term Bindings '''
 +
# ''' Path Based Bindings '''
 +
# ''' Constraint_bindings '''
 +
# ''' Ordinal '''

Latest revision as of 10:14, 11 January 2013

Proposal for ADL Terminology Binding

General

  1. Value Set Identifiers should be representable as URI's
    1. All CIMI authored value sets will derive their identifiers and URIs from the SNOMED CT CIMI namespace. This applies whether the content of the value set is in SNOMED CT space or not.
    2. Existing value sets will derive their URI's from the URI construction rules (ref)
  2. The 'canonical' and exchange format for value sets will be CTS2.
    1. "Extensional" value sets will be represented as ResolvedValueSet constructs. Optionally, "Extensional" value sets may be represented as ValueSetDefinition<code> constructs with
    2. Mappings and tools will be provided for translation between CTS2 and the HL7 Terminfo Extension formats and the IHTSDO value set definition grammar.

dADL

  1. Coded Terms - We need to provide an additional section that associates <code>terminology_id with a URI. A separate issue is whether the CIMI group wants to establish a separate namespace for the terminology_identifiers themselves - whether they want to assert that SNOMED CT will always be identified by the terminology identifier "snomed_ct" or whether they want to use more of the approach used by XML - where every document has a declarations section that maps document specific identifiers (e.g. xmlns:snomed_ct="http://snomed.info/sct/900000000000207008"). The FHIR group is trying to take the more global approach, but Mayo's experience has been that it is hard enough to settle on a URI, let alone decide whether "SCT", "SNOMED CT", "snm", etc. is the official representation. Note: IF the decision is made to take the global approach, what CIMI would actually be doing is establishing a namespace. We would recommend that a scoping namespace be provided so that the world outside CIMI (yes - there is such a thing ;-) ) can formally say "snomed_ct" as it is defined by CIMI.

cADL

Ontology

  1. Global Term Bindings
  2. Path Based Bindings
  3. Constraint_bindings
  4. Ordinal