A workflow has arisen that requires a value set (or code system) expansion that includes basic hierarchical (Parent/Child) relationship information. The use case is for a value set/code system that is “local” and inherently hierarchical. Does anyone know if such an expansion is supported in FHIR?
Jack
An expansion is inherently hierarchical . Is that what you mean?
Grahame
On Tuesday, October 28, 2014, Jack Bowie jack.bowie@gmail.com wrote:
A workflow has arisen that requires a value set (or code system) expansion that includes basic hierarchical (Parent/Child) relationship information. The use case is for a value set/code system that is “local” and inherently hierarchical. Does anyone know if such an expansion is supported in FHIR?
Jack
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Terminology Services” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to terminology-services+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame@healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065
The payload could be inherently hierarchical or each Concept object in the expansion “list” could have a Parent Of (or Child Of) attribute. The more I think about it, a hierarchical payload might make more sense, but there is always the issue of ill-formed code sets: e.g., ones with cycles.
Is this taking the ValueSet model too far afield?
Jack
On Monday, October 27, 2014 5:10:36 PM UTC-4, grahame wrote:
An expansion is inherently hierarchical . Is that what you mean?
Grahame
On Tuesday, October 28, 2014, Jack Bowie jack....@gmail.com wrote:
A workflow has arisen that requires a value set (or code system) expansion that includes basic hierarchical (Parent/Child) relationship information. The use case is for a value set/code system that is “local” and inherently hierarchical. Does anyone know if such an expansion is supported in FHIR?
Jack
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Terminology Services” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to terminology-services+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
–
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / gra…@healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065
Well, the existing expansion structure is inherently hierarchical bug there’s no requirement that it particularly mean parent/child. If can just be categorised groups for helping a user navigate the list.
The way FHIR works, you can extend it now with parent extensions (there’s one defined already : http://hl7-fhir.github.io/valueset-extensions.html - see subsumes, and you can see it used here: http://hl7-fhir.github.io/v3/ActCode/v3-ActCode.xml.html). I think that this does sound like something that should be extensions to me.
Grahame
On Tuesday, October 28, 2014, Jack Bowie jack.bowie@gmail.com wrote:
The payload could be inherently hierarchical or each Concept object in the expansion “list” could have a Parent Of (or Child Of) attribute. The more I think about it, a hierarchical payload might make more sense, but there is always the issue of ill-formed code sets: e.g., ones with cycles.
Is this taking the ValueSet model too far afield?
Jack
On Monday, October 27, 2014 5:10:36 PM UTC-4, grahame wrote:
An expansion is inherently hierarchical . Is that what you mean?
Grahame
On Tuesday, October 28, 2014, Jack Bowie jack....@gmail.com wrote:
A workflow has arisen that requires a value set (or code system) expansion that includes basic hierarchical (Parent/Child) relationship information. The use case is for a value set/code system that is “local” and inherently hierarchical. Does anyone know if such an expansion is supported in FHIR?
Jack
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Terminology Services” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to terminology-services+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
–
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / gra…@healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Terminology Services” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to terminology-services+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame@healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065
Don’t you think that would be beyond most implementers capability? I might recommend a more straightforward set. I suppose you could include parent child and a depth indicator which could be ignored if all they could deal with is a list.
Andrew S. Kanter, MD MPH FACMI
andrew.kanter@dbmi.columbia.edu
+1.646.469.2421
Sent from my iPhone 5S
On Oct 27, 2014, at 4:37 PM, Jack Bowie jack.bowie@gmail.com wrote:
The payload could be inherently hierarchical or each Concept object in the expansion “list” could have a Parent Of (or Child Of) attribute. The more I think about it, a hierarchical payload might make more sense, but there is always the issue of ill-formed code sets: e.g., ones with cycles.
Is this taking the ValueSet model too far afield?
Jack
On Monday, October 27, 2014 5:10:36 PM UTC-4, grahame wrote:
An expansion is inherently hierarchical . Is that what you mean?
Grahame
On Tuesday, October 28, 2014, Jack Bowie jack....@gmail.com wrote:
A workflow has arisen that requires a value set (or code system) expansion that includes basic hierarchical (Parent/Child) relationship information. The use case is for a value set/code system that is “local” and inherently hierarchical. Does anyone know if such an expansion is supported in FHIR?
Jack
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Terminology Services” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to terminology-services+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
–
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / gra…@healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Terminology Services” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to terminology-services+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Don't you think that would be beyond most implementers capability? I might
recommend a more straightforward set. I suppose you could include parent
child and a depth indicator which could be ignored if all they could deal
with is a list.
but parent / child depth is not fixed in poly-heirarchical terminologies
(SCT, I'm looking at you!)
Grahame
Actually, I don’t think that is true of SNOMED. We (IMO) have certainly included a depth from top level. It can have multiple depths, however depending on the routing. Let me ask how that was done…
Andy
--------------------
Andrew S. Kanter, MD MPH FACMI
Asst. Prof. of Clinical Biomedical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology
Columbia University
Email: andrew.kanter@dbmi.columbia.edu
Mobile: +1 (646) 469-2421
Office: +1 (212) 305-4842
Skype: akanter-ippnw
Yahoo: andy_kanter
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 5:22 PM, Grahame Grieve grahame@healthintersections.com.au wrote:
Don’t you think that would be beyond most implementers capability? I might recommend a more straightforward set. I suppose you could include parent child and a depth indicator which could be ignored if all they could deal with is a list.
but parent / child depth is not fixed in poly-heirarchical terminologies (SCT, I’m looking at you!)
Grahame
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Terminology Services” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to terminology-services+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
I certainly is true. I track the shallowest depth, but it’s only useful for comparing closely related concepts
Grahame
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:48 AM, ‘Andrew Kanter’ via Terminology Services terminology-services@googlegroups.com wrote:
Actually, I don’t think that is true of SNOMED. We (IMO) have certainly included a depth from top level. It can have multiple depths, however depending on the routing. Let me ask how that was done…
Andy
--------------------
Andrew S. Kanter, MD MPH FACMI
Asst. Prof. of Clinical Biomedical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology
Columbia University
Email: andrew.kanter@dbmi.columbia.edu
Mobile: +1 (646) 469-2421
Office: +1 (212) 305-4842
Skype: akanter-ippnw
Yahoo: andy_kanter
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 5:22 PM, Grahame Grieve grahame@healthintersections.com.au wrote:
Don’t you think that would be beyond most implementers capability? I might recommend a more straightforward set. I suppose you could include parent child and a depth indicator which could be ignored if all they could deal with is a list.
but parent / child depth is not fixed in poly-heirarchical terminologies (SCT, I’m looking at you!)
Grahame
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Terminology Services” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to terminology-services+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Terminology Services” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to terminology-services+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
–
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame@healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065
Grahame,
If I have a Value Set that is (could be) hierarchical, will the expansion always be hierarchical or is there a way to request a flat list instead of the hierarchical representation?
Jack
On Monday, October 27, 2014 5:10:36 PM UTC-4, grahame wrote:
An expansion is inherently hierarchical . Is that what you mean?
Grahame
On Tuesday, October 28, 2014, Jack Bowie jack....@gmail.com wrote:
A workflow has arisen that requires a value set (or code system) expansion that includes basic hierarchical (Parent/Child) relationship information. The use case is for a value set/code system that is “local” and inherently hierarchical. Does anyone know if such an expansion is supported in FHIR?
Jack
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Terminology Services” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to terminology-services+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
–
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / gra…@healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065
Right now, the expansion can either be flat or heirarchical at the discretion of the server.
When we looked at the problem of specifying the structure of the expansion, we saw wide variation depending on the code system or the software, with no emergent themes, so we didn’t do anything about specifying the nature of the expansion. Implementations are able to add parameters to the expansion operation and/or extensions to the value set definition. If we see common things emerge in the implementation space, then we’ll add them to the spec.
So for openHIE purposes, if there’s a consensus about this, we can define something in a profile, and I can even add that to the terminology services connectathon
Grahame
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Jack Bowie jack.bowie@gmail.com wrote:
Grahame,
If I have a Value Set that is (could be) hierarchical, will the expansion always be hierarchical or is there a way to request a flat list instead of the hierarchical representation?
Jack
On Monday, October 27, 2014 5:10:36 PM UTC-4, grahame wrote:
An expansion is inherently hierarchical . Is that what you mean?
Grahame
On Tuesday, October 28, 2014, Jack Bowie jack....@gmail.com wrote:
A workflow has arisen that requires a value set (or code system) expansion that includes basic hierarchical (Parent/Child) relationship information. The use case is for a value set/code system that is “local” and inherently hierarchical. Does anyone know if such an expansion is supported in FHIR?
Jack
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Terminology Services” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to terminology-services+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
–
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / gra…@healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Terminology Services” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to terminology-services+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
–
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame@healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065