I’m writing this to open a discussion on the role of the TR as the source of truth for OpenHIE terminologies, and its role in syncing our OpenMRS based concept dictionaries.
At this point, requests sent to the SHR via the HIM are validated against the TR before being passed on.
However, if for some reason these concepts don’t exist in the SHR, an error is thrown. The SHR does NOT attempt to create the missing concepts (which are clearly valid, as they have been checked against the TR)
Plus, the current process to update the POC and SHR concept dictionaries against the TR are manual, and hence, it can be quite difficult to accomplish.
I’d like to propose the development of an OpenMRS module which can be triggered to communicate with the HIM/TR interface, and sync the POC / SHR concept dictionary by creating / updating based on the source of truth (TR).
I would love to hear your comments on this topic. I’d also say that this sounds like an interesting GSOC project, with an appropriate scope / difficulty level to match.
Thanks for bringing this up. With the SHR developments at the moment we have been considering creating concept as they are needed in the SHR. We would then not need to keep a complex concept dictionary in sync. We would trust the CDA messages that we received from the OpenHIM would be well formed and contain terminology that has been validated and/or normalised by the TS.
What do you think about this? Syncing with a POC system on the other hand is something we can discuss.
Cheers,
Ryan
···
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Suranga Kasthurirathne surangakas@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I’m writing this to open a discussion on the role of the TR as the source of truth for OpenHIE terminologies, and its role in syncing our OpenMRS based concept dictionaries.
At this point, requests sent to the SHR via the HIM are validated against the TR before being passed on.
However, if for some reason these concepts don’t exist in the SHR, an error is thrown. The SHR does NOT attempt to create the missing concepts (which are clearly valid, as they have been checked against the TR)
Plus, the current process to update the POC and SHR concept dictionaries against the TR are manual, and hence, it can be quite difficult to accomplish.
I’d like to propose the development of an OpenMRS module which can be triggered to communicate with the HIM/TR interface, and sync the POC / SHR concept dictionary by creating / updating based on the source of truth (TR).
Suranga
I would love to hear your comments on this topic. I’d also say that this sounds like an interesting GSOC project, with an appropriate scope / difficulty level to match.
Best Regards,
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “OpenHIE Architecture” group.
We see a standard of using enterprise-level IDs (e.g. ECID, ELID, etc) with the SHR, and believe the same should be done with terminology. We could say, for instance, that LOINC is our version of ETID, but is it? Paul Biondich’s reaction to that suggestion was that it would be a bad move to rely on something like LOINC as the enterprise identification of terminology for an entire HIE, and that the TS should be able to recognize “local” dictionaries (from a POC, for instance) and the IOL should be replacing terminology in the incoming message with enterprise identifiers before it gets to the SHR.
I agree that we have an implicit trust that the IOL has vetted any incoming terminology, and that it seems only right to populate the SHR’s concept dictionary with those terms, but how do we know the concepts from one POC don’t overlap concepts from another, unless we have some form of mapping? It seems the TS should be responsible for this, and the SHR should only need to understand one set of terms.
···
Jeremy Keiper
OpenMRS Core Developer
AMPATH / IU-Kenya Support
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Ryan Crichton ryan@jembi.org wrote:
Hi Suranga,
Thanks for bringing this up. With the SHR developments at the moment we have been considering creating concept as they are needed in the SHR. We would then not need to keep a complex concept dictionary in sync. We would trust the CDA messages that we received from the OpenHIM would be well formed and contain terminology that has been validated and/or normalised by the TS.
What do you think about this? Syncing with a POC system on the other hand is something we can discuss.
Cheers,
Ryan
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “OpenHIE Architecture” group.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Suranga Kasthurirathne surangakas@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I’m writing this to open a discussion on the role of the TR as the source of truth for OpenHIE terminologies, and its role in syncing our OpenMRS based concept dictionaries.
At this point, requests sent to the SHR via the HIM are validated against the TR before being passed on.
However, if for some reason these concepts don’t exist in the SHR, an error is thrown. The SHR does NOT attempt to create the missing concepts (which are clearly valid, as they have been checked against the TR)
Plus, the current process to update the POC and SHR concept dictionaries against the TR are manual, and hence, it can be quite difficult to accomplish.
I’d like to propose the development of an OpenMRS module which can be triggered to communicate with the HIM/TR interface, and sync the POC / SHR concept dictionary by creating / updating based on the source of truth (TR).
Suranga
I would love to hear your comments on this topic. I’d also say that this sounds like an interesting GSOC project, with an appropriate scope / difficulty level to match.
Best Regards,
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “OpenHIE Architecture” group.
I believe we will be well-served by a core premise of our HIE – that we will not allow “strangers” on our network. This has an implication: a POS will need to go thru a conformance testing process before it will be “allowed” to exchange messages with our IL. This conformance testing process can, and should, include requirements regarding the appropriate use of terminologies. Paul is right… there may be times when a local code set is used. But that will ONLY happen when the HIE decides that it will support that local code set (and there may be expedient reasons to do this). It will, however, NEVER be the case that a POS will send whatever it wants and the IL and TS have to try to make sense of it as best they can.
Most of the jurisdictions we will be working in have a stronger ability to exert central control than is typically the case in the US system. We should expect that this control will enforce adherence to norms and standards that are operationalized by the national eHealth infrastructure (the HIE). I think we should also expect that this adherence will have been “proven” (thru mandatory conformance testing) before a POS ever sends its first message to our IL.
My $0.02…
DJ
···
On Monday, March 3, 2014 3:18:34 PM UTC-5, Jeremy Keiper wrote:
We see a standard of using enterprise-level IDs (e.g. ECID, ELID, etc) with the SHR, and believe the same should be done with terminology. We could say, for instance, that LOINC is our version of ETID, but is it? Paul Biondich’s reaction to that suggestion was that it would be a bad move to rely on something like LOINC as the enterprise identification of terminology for an entire HIE, and that the TS should be able to recognize “local” dictionaries (from a POC, for instance) and the IOL should be replacing terminology in the incoming message with enterprise identifiers before it gets to the SHR.
I agree that we have an implicit trust that the IOL has vetted any incoming terminology, and that it seems only right to populate the SHR’s concept dictionary with those terms, but how do we know the concepts from one POC don’t overlap concepts from another, unless we have some form of mapping? It seems the TS should be responsible for this, and the SHR should only need to understand one set of terms.
Jeremy Keiper
OpenMRS Core Developer
AMPATH / IU-Kenya Support
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Ryan Crichton ry...@jembi.org wrote:
Hi Suranga,
Thanks for bringing this up. With the SHR developments at the moment we have been considering creating concept as they are needed in the SHR. We would then not need to keep a complex concept dictionary in sync. We would trust the CDA messages that we received from the OpenHIM would be well formed and contain terminology that has been validated and/or normalised by the TS.
What do you think about this? Syncing with a POC system on the other hand is something we can discuss.
Cheers,
Ryan
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Suranga Kasthurirathne suran...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I’m writing this to open a discussion on the role of the TR as the source of truth for OpenHIE terminologies, and its role in syncing our OpenMRS based concept dictionaries.
At this point, requests sent to the SHR via the HIM are validated against the TR before being passed on.
However, if for some reason these concepts don’t exist in the SHR, an error is thrown. The SHR does NOT attempt to create the missing concepts (which are clearly valid, as they have been checked against the TR)
Plus, the current process to update the POC and SHR concept dictionaries against the TR are manual, and hence, it can be quite difficult to accomplish.
I’d like to propose the development of an OpenMRS module which can be triggered to communicate with the HIM/TR interface, and sync the POC / SHR concept dictionary by creating / updating based on the source of truth (TR).
Suranga
I would love to hear your comments on this topic. I’d also say that this sounds like an interesting GSOC project, with an appropriate scope / difficulty level to match.
Best Regards,
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “OpenHIE Architecture” group.
I understand the careful construction of a given IHE will lend it to having trusted data coming from a POC into the various registries. My concern is that the SHR should be given terms from a single authority, such as LOINC, so that it does not have to concern itself with mapping terms from one source to the other. The Terminology Service should perform that mapping and provide the “official” term, so the normalized data in the SHR does not run into missing overlaps between authorities. I understand we also want the SHR to maintain exact copies of original messages, but this is already being changed by using the CR and PR to replace identifiers with enterprise-level ones. Do we want the TS to break this pattern?
···
Jeremy Keiper
OpenMRS Core Developer
AMPATH / IU-Kenya Support
I believe we will be well-served by a core premise of our HIE – that we will not allow “strangers” on our network. This has an implication: a POS will need to go thru a conformance testing process before it will be “allowed” to exchange messages with our IL. This conformance testing process can, and should, include requirements regarding the appropriate use of terminologies. Paul is right… there may be times when a local code set is used. But that will ONLY happen when the HIE decides that it will support that local code set (and there may be expedient reasons to do this). It will, however, NEVER be the case that a POS will send whatever it wants and the IL and TS have to try to make sense of it as best they can.
Most of the jurisdictions we will be working in have a stronger ability to exert central control than is typically the case in the US system. We should expect that this control will enforce adherence to norms and standards that are operationalized by the national eHealth infrastructure (the HIE). I think we should also expect that this adherence will have been “proven” (thru mandatory conformance testing) before a POS ever sends its first message to our IL.
My $0.02…
DJ
On Monday, March 3, 2014 3:18:34 PM UTC-5, Jeremy Keiper wrote:
We see a standard of using enterprise-level IDs (e.g. ECID, ELID, etc) with the SHR, and believe the same should be done with terminology. We could say, for instance, that LOINC is our version of ETID, but is it? Paul Biondich’s reaction to that suggestion was that it would be a bad move to rely on something like LOINC as the enterprise identification of terminology for an entire HIE, and that the TS should be able to recognize “local” dictionaries (from a POC, for instance) and the IOL should be replacing terminology in the incoming message with enterprise identifiers before it gets to the SHR.
I agree that we have an implicit trust that the IOL has vetted any incoming terminology, and that it seems only right to populate the SHR’s concept dictionary with those terms, but how do we know the concepts from one POC don’t overlap concepts from another, unless we have some form of mapping? It seems the TS should be responsible for this, and the SHR should only need to understand one set of terms.
Jeremy Keiper
OpenMRS Core Developer
AMPATH / IU-Kenya Support
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Ryan Crichton ry...@jembi.org wrote:
Hi Suranga,
Thanks for bringing this up. With the SHR developments at the moment we have been considering creating concept as they are needed in the SHR. We would then not need to keep a complex concept dictionary in sync. We would trust the CDA messages that we received from the OpenHIM would be well formed and contain terminology that has been validated and/or normalised by the TS.
What do you think about this? Syncing with a POC system on the other hand is something we can discuss.
Cheers,
Ryan
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Suranga Kasthurirathne suran...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I’m writing this to open a discussion on the role of the TR as the source of truth for OpenHIE terminologies, and its role in syncing our OpenMRS based concept dictionaries.
At this point, requests sent to the SHR via the HIM are validated against the TR before being passed on.
However, if for some reason these concepts don’t exist in the SHR, an error is thrown. The SHR does NOT attempt to create the missing concepts (which are clearly valid, as they have been checked against the TR)
Plus, the current process to update the POC and SHR concept dictionaries against the TR are manual, and hence, it can be quite difficult to accomplish.
I’d like to propose the development of an OpenMRS module which can be triggered to communicate with the HIM/TR interface, and sync the POC / SHR concept dictionary by creating / updating based on the source of truth (TR).
Suranga
I would love to hear your comments on this topic. I’d also say that this sounds like an interesting GSOC project, with an appropriate scope / difficulty level to match.
Best Regards,
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “OpenHIE Architecture” group.
I understand the careful construction of a given IHE will lend it to
having trusted data coming from a POC into the various registries. My
concern is that the SHR should be given terms from a single authority, such
as LOINC, so that it does not have to concern itself with mapping terms
from one source to the other. The Terminology Service should perform that
mapping and provide the "official" term, so the normalized data in the SHR
does not run into missing overlaps between authorities. I understand we
also want the SHR to maintain exact copies of original messages, but this
is already being changed by using the CR and PR to replace identifiers with
enterprise-level ones. Do we want the TS to break this pattern?
I didn't realizer it did that. Why do we need to break the (good)
principle of storing the original message? Augmented with the enterprize
identifiers. Other than this would be in contradiction with the other
principle that SHR should be given terms from a single authority?
···
On 4 March 2014 14:00, Jeremy Keiper <jeremy@openmrs.org> wrote:
Jeremy Keiper
OpenMRS Core Developer
AMPATH / IU-Kenya Support
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Derek Ritz <derek.ritz@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe we will be well-served by a core premise of our HIE -- that we
will not allow "strangers" on our network. This has an implication: a POS
will need to go thru a conformance testing process before it will be
"allowed" to exchange messages with our IL. This conformance testing
process can, and should, include requirements regarding the appropriate use
of terminologies. Paul is right... there may be times when a local code set
is used. But that will ONLY happen when the HIE decides that it will
support that local code set (and there may be expedient reasons to do
this). It will, however, NEVER be the case that a POS will send whatever it
wants and the IL and TS have to try to make sense of it as best they can.
Most of the jurisdictions we will be working in have a stronger ability
to exert central control than is typically the case in the US system. We
should expect that this control will enforce adherence to norms and
standards that are operationalized by the national eHealth infrastructure
(the HIE). I think we should also expect that this adherence will have been
"proven" (thru mandatory conformance testing) before a POS ever sends its
first message to our IL.
My $0.02...
DJ
On Monday, March 3, 2014 3:18:34 PM UTC-5, Jeremy Keiper wrote:
We see a standard of using enterprise-level IDs (e.g. ECID, ELID, etc)
with the SHR, and believe the same should be done with terminology. We
could say, for instance, that LOINC is our version of ETID, but is it?
Paul Biondich's reaction to that suggestion was that it would be a bad
move to rely on something like LOINC as the enterprise identification of
terminology for an entire HIE, and that the TS should be able to recognize
"local" dictionaries (from a POC, for instance) and the IOL should be
replacing terminology in the incoming message with enterprise identifiers
before it gets to the SHR.
I agree that we have an implicit trust that the IOL has vetted any
incoming terminology, and that it seems only right to populate the SHR's
concept dictionary with those terms, but how do we know the concepts from
one POC don't overlap concepts from another, unless we have some form of
mapping? It seems the TS should be responsible for this, and the SHR
should only need to understand one set of terms.
Jeremy Keiper
OpenMRS Core Developer
AMPATH / IU-Kenya Support
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Ryan Crichton <ry...@jembi.org> wrote:
Hi Suranga,
Thanks for bringing this up. With the SHR developments at the moment we
have been considering creating concept as they are needed in the SHR. We
would then not need to keep a complex concept dictionary in sync. We would
trust the CDA messages that we received from the OpenHIM would be well
formed and contain terminology that has been validated and/or normalised by
the TS.
What do you think about this? Syncing with a POC system on the other
hand is something we can discuss.
Cheers,
Ryan
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Suranga Kasthurirathne < >>>> suran...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I'm writing this to open a discussion on the role of the TR as the
source of truth for OpenHIE terminologies, and its role in syncing our
OpenMRS based concept dictionaries.
At this point, requests sent to the SHR via the HIM are validated
against the TR before being passed on.
However, if for some reason these concepts don't exist in the SHR, an
error is thrown. The SHR does NOT attempt to create the missing concepts
(which are clearly valid, as they have been checked against the TR)
Plus, the current process to update the POC and SHR concept
dictionaries against the TR are manual, and hence, it can be quite
difficult to accomplish.
I'd like to propose the development of an OpenMRS module which can be
triggered to communicate with the HIM/TR interface, and sync the POC / SHR
concept dictionary by creating / updating based on the source of truth (TR).
I would love to hear your comments on this topic. I'd also say that
this sounds like an interesting GSOC project, with an appropriate scope /
difficulty level to match.
--
Best Regards,
Suranga
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "OpenHIE Architecture" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to ohie-architect...@googlegroups.com.
--
Ryan Crichton
Software Developer, Jembi Health Systems | SOUTH AFRICA
Mobile: +27845829934 | Skype: ryan.graham.crichton
E-mail: ry...@jembi.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "OpenHIE Architecture" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to ohie-architect...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"OpenHIE Architecture" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to ohie-architecture+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"OpenHIE Architecture" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to ohie-architecture+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.