# ANNC: openEHR Release 1.0 candidate uploaded **Category:** [Technical (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/technical-archive/156) **Created:** 2005-10-26 16:54 UTC **Views:** 1 **Replies:** 9 **URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/annc-openehr-release-1-0-candidate-uploaded/14511 --- ## Post #1 by @thomas.beale Dear all, we have uploaded an initial cut of the emerging Release 1\.0 of the openEHR specifications\. The index page for viewing documentary forms of the specifications and schemas is at http://svn.openehr.org/specification/BRANCHES/Release-1.0-candidate/publishing/index.html. Subversion links can be seen from the project \(http://svn.openehr.org/specification/TRUNK/project_page.htm). Please note that some of the content in the release 1\.0 candidate has not yet been approved by the ARB; it may therefore change slightly before reaching its final version\. Some of it is still under active development\. We recommend to implementers particularly to review the changes to the EHR, Data Structures, ADL and AOM; all of which can be reached from the first link above\. Release 1\.0 is expected to be finalised sometime in the next three months; a firm date will be announced soon\. Please send feedback to the technical list\. \- thomas beale --- ## Post #2 by @Koray_Atalag Dear All, When dreaming about future Medical ICT systems with decision assistance on the fly \(Star Trek Syle\!\) I had the idea of including some PUBMED pointers/references \(PMID\) directly inside archetypes\. The reason is simple; the simplest decision assistance \(by the way my thesis advisor has warned me that this is the new buzzword replacing Decision Support :\)\) is providing users with recent and relevant publised papers about a particular subject\.\.\.I am not even mentioning about guidelines and Evidence Based Medicine \(EBM\) repositories\.\.\.Since in the past \(and for most of the so called scientific community still valid\) papers published in indexed/refereed journals were the ultimate sources of knowledge, this might be extremely useful for context dependent and seamless linking of clinical information systems which makes use of these archetypes to good\-and\-old knowledge sources\. This I believe is also an important step in making EBM reality\.\.\. What I propose is to create another optional section in ADL documents like ONTOLOGY and put this information; probably in addition to PMIDs, other metadata like original language of the paper, MEDLINE style information about publishment such as names of authors, title, year and etc\. This is the kind of functionality which I am planning to incorporate in future versions of my endoscopic information system as part of my Ph\.D\. work\.\.\.Right now I can indirectly achieve this functionality by incorporating UMLS CIDs which are internally linked with MESH keywords used for indexing of all biomedical papers and doing a lot of querries to UMLS Knowledge Sources\.\.\. This approach might attract more interest from the scientific community onto openEHR work and maybe increase the quality of archetypes\.\.\.And probably more industries like publishing will provide support in us\.\.\. Any comments??? \-koray --- ## Post #3 by @thomas.beale Koray Atalag wrote: > Dear All, > > When dreaming about future Medical ICT systems with decision assistance on > the fly \(Star Trek Syle\!\) I had the idea of including some PUBMED > pointers/references \(PMID\) directly inside archetypes\. The reason is simple; > the simplest decision assistance \(by the way my thesis advisor has warned me > that this is the new buzzword replacing Decision Support :\)\) is providing > users with recent and relevant publised papers about a particular > subject\.\.\.I am not even mentioning about guidelines and Evidence Based > Medicine \(EBM\) repositories\.\.\.Since in the past \(and for most of the so > called scientific community still valid\) papers published in > indexed/refereed journals were the ultimate sources of knowledge, this might > be extremely useful for context dependent and seamless linking of clinical > information systems which makes use of these archetypes to good\-and\-old > knowledge sources\. This I believe is also an important step in making EBM > reality\.\.\. > > What I propose is to create another optional section in ADL documents like > ONTOLOGY and put this information; probably in addition to PMIDs, other > metadata like original language of the paper, MEDLINE style information > about publishment such as names of authors, title, year and etc\. > > This is the kind of functionality which I am planning to incorporate in > future versions of my endoscopic information system as part of my Ph\.D\. > work\.\.\.Right now I can indirectly achieve this functionality by > incorporating UMLS CIDs which are internally linked with MESH keywords used > for indexing of all biomedical papers and doing a lot of querries to UMLS > Knowledge Sources\.\.\. > > This approach might attract more interest from the scientific community onto > openEHR work and maybe increase the quality of archetypes\.\.\.And probably > more industries like publishing will provide support in us\.\.\. > > Any comments??? > > \-koray > > \- > If you have any questions about using this list, > please send a message to d\.lloyd@openehr\.org > Have a close look at: http://my.openehr.org/wsvn/knowledge/archetypes/dev/adl/test/description/openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.Intervention.v1.adl?op=file&rev=0&sc=0 The description section gives an idea of what you can do with archetypes now\. The Archetype Editor is catching up to this\. The other development is the archetype ontology server \- see the prototype at http://www.dualitysystems.com.au/archetypefinder/archetypefinder. \- thomas beale --- ## Post #4 by @Isabel_Roman Dear Koray, I'm working with some thing like this but I'm including references to publications in the instances, no in the archetypes\. I think that an archetype is some thing generic, a concept, to include links to bibliography can be interesting in some cases, for example if you are modelling a clinical guideline with and archetype or some thing like this\. But for the idea of Evidence Based Medicine I think that is more interesting to include it in particular instances, in a particular case, especially crossing concepts implied in this case, this is the work we are developing in this moment\. For this we are including annotations with the links to publications of interest inside the information no inside the archetypes\. Regards Isabel Román --- ## Post #5 by @Sam Isabel and Gerard I think both are correct. The protocol on the openEHR entry is made for such things and already a number of archetypes have links - these will be very useful for patients and others - relating a document to a particular problem the person has (instance). It is also clear that the Bartel index is a generic archetype and has its own associated literature. For this reason we are recording the source of such information structures and also bibliographic references. We are doing this in the repository rather than in the archetype (to manage scale!). So I think these both have their place! Cheers, Sam Isabel Román wrote: > ``` > Dear Koray, > I'm working with some thing like this but I'm including references to > publications in the instances, no in the archetypes. I think that an > archetype is some thing generic, a concept, to include links to bibliography > can be interesting in some cases, for example if you are modelling a > clinical guideline with and archetype or some thing like this. But for the > idea of Evidence Based Medicine I think that is more interesting to include > it in particular instances, in a particular case, especially crossing > concepts implied in this case, this is the work we are developing in this > moment. For this we are including annotations with the links to publications > of interest inside the information no inside the archetypes. > > Regards > Isabel Román > > From: "Koray Atalag" [](mailto:atalagk@yahoo.com) > To: [](mailto:openehr-technical@openehr.org) > Cc: [](mailto:openehr-clinical@openehr.org) > Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 12:12 AM > Subject: Inclusion of bibliographic references into Archetypes > > > ``` > > > ``` > > Dear All, > > > > When dreaming about future Medical ICT systems with decision assistance on > > the fly (Star Trek Syle!) I had the idea of including some PUBMED > > pointers/references (PMID) directly inside archetypes. The reason is > > > > ``` > > ``` > simple; > > ``` > > > ``` > > the simplest decision assistance (by the way my thesis advisor has warned > > > > ``` > > ``` > me > > ``` > > > ``` > > that this is the new buzzword replacing Decision Support :)) is providing > > users with recent and relevant publised papers about a particular > > subject...I am not even mentioning about guidelines and Evidence Based > > Medicine (EBM) repositories...Since in the past (and for most of the so > > called scientific community still valid) papers published in > > indexed/refereed journals were the ultimate sources of knowledge, this > > > > ``` > > ``` > might > > ``` > > > ``` > > be extremely useful for context dependent and seamless linking of clinical > > information systems which makes use of these archetypes to good-and-old > > knowledge sources. This I believe is also an important step in making EBM > > reality... > > > > What I propose is to create another optional section in ADL documents like > > ONTOLOGY and put this information; probably in addition to PMIDs, other > > metadata like original language of the paper, MEDLINE style information > > about publishment such as names of authors, title, year and etc. > > > > This is the kind of functionality which I am planning to incorporate in > > future versions of my endoscopic information system as part of my Ph.D. > > work...Right now I can indirectly achieve this functionality by > > incorporating UMLS CIDs which are internally linked with MESH keywords > > > > ``` > > ``` > used > > ``` > > > ``` > > for indexing of all biomedical papers and doing a lot of querries to UMLS > > Knowledge Sources... > > > > This approach might attract more interest from the scientific community > > > > ``` > > ``` > onto > > ``` > > > ``` > > openEHR work and maybe increase the quality of archetypes...And probably > > more industries like publishing will provide support in us... > > > > Any comments??? > > > > -koray > > > > - > > If you have any questions about using this list, > > please send a message to [d.lloyd@openehr.org](mailto:d.lloyd@openehr.org) > > > > ``` > > ``` > > - > If you have any questions about using this list, > please send a message to [d.lloyd@openehr.org](mailto:d.lloyd@openehr.org) > > > ``` - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd@openehr.org --- ## Post #6 by @thomas.beale Sam Heard wrote: > Isabel and Gerard > > I think both are correct\. The protocol on the openEHR entry is made for such things and already a number of archetypes have links \- these will be very useful for patients and others \- relating a document to a particular problem the person has \(instance\)\. > > It is also clear that the Bartel index is a generic archetype and has its own associated literature\. For this reason we are recording the source of such information structures and also bibliographic references\. We are doing this in the repository rather than in the archetype \(to manage scale\!\)\. > > So I think these both have their place\! > > Cheers, Sam > By the way, URI is now a primitive type in ADL\. You can have an http:// ref wherever you want it\. \- thomas --- ## Post #7 by @Koray_Atalag Hi to All, Thanks for all your comments\.\.\. Thomas, when I examine the new archetype as you have stated in a previous message \(http://my.openehr.org/wsvn/knowledge/archetypes/dev/adl/test/description/op enEHR\-EHR\-OBSERVATION\.Intervention\.v1\.adl?op=file&rev=0&sc=0\) I can now see that it is possible to include these type of links\.\.\. But when I examine I see that the keyword \[medline\] is used\.\.\.Is it possible to use any keyword or they will be fixed in the ADL/AOM?? If it is going to be fixed, then correct keyword should be \[PMID\] \(I guess stands for PubMed ID\) as this is the unique index number to the paper including the ones that can be accessed using medline\.\.\.\. I also agree with rest of you that only this reference be included in the archetype; other details can be associated with individual instances\.\.\. It is good that URIs can be used anywhere in the archetype as needed\.\.\.I have a requirement to display original MST copyright information in any written or computable system where it is embedded\.\.\.So it might ve useful to include an URI to the original copyright message in MST\-Colon and other archtypes\.\.\. I am sure, this reference and other references will be very useful for other functions; like including CME or med school course references so that med students or other users may be able to access directly to the educational resource\. It is now becoming popular in many med schools and teaching hospitals to give limited/read\-only HIS access to students so that they can examine and follow\-up patient care in live setting\.\.\. Best regards, Dr\.Koray Atalag --- ## Post #8 by @williamtfgoossen In een bericht met de datum 1-11-2005 4:03:18 West-Europa (standaardtijd), schrijft sam.heard@oceaninformatics.biz: I agree with Sam: the archetype / template should contain the core elements e.g. if Barthel index the variables, unique code per variable, the value sets and descriptions and other things like datatypes, cardinalities, in some instances also derivation methods like the summation of scores to get a total. Then the purpose of instrument / archetype, the interpretation and bibliographic references should go outside the archetype itself. William Goossen --- ## Post #9 by @thomas.beale Koray Atalag wrote: > Hi to All, > > Thanks for all your comments\.\.\. > > Thomas, when I examine the new archetype as you have stated in a previous > message > \(http://my.openehr.org/wsvn/knowledge/archetypes/dev/adl/test/description/op > enEHR\-EHR\-OBSERVATION\.Intervention\.v1\.adl?op=file&rev=0&sc=0\) I can now see > that it is possible to include these type of links\.\.\. > > But when I examine I see that the keyword \[medline\] is used\.\.\.Is it possible > to use any keyword or they will be fixed in the ADL/AOM?? If it is going to > be fixed, then correct keyword should be \[PMID\] \(I guess stands for PubMed > ID\) as this is the unique index number to the paper including the ones that > can be accessed using medline\.\.\.\. > the AOM wll not standardise this at this stage, but the openEHR community might over time decide on the vocabulary it should be \- then we can create an openeHR vocabulary for it\. At the moment it is open\. \- thomas --- ## Post #10 by @thomas.beale Williamtfgoossen@cs\.com wrote: > In een bericht met de datum 1\-11\-2005 4:03:18 West\-Europa \(standaardtijd\), schrijft sam\.heard@oceaninformatics\.biz: > > I agree with Sam: the archetype / template should contain the core elements e\.g\. if Barthel index the variables, unique code per variable, the value sets and descriptions and other things like datatypes, cardinalities, in some instances also derivation methods like the summation of scores to get a total\. > > Then the purpose of instrument / archetype, the interpretation and bibliographic references should go outside the archetype itself\. > > William Goossen we currently store purpose in the archetype, and a fair bit of other meta\-data, including links to literature\. I think that the archetypes have to be able to stand alone and be sensible in an editor\. Clearly there will also be meta\-data stored externally as well; it will take some experience with implementation before we know what the right balance is\. \- thomas beale --- **Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/annc-openehr-release-1-0-candidate-uploaded/14511 **Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/annc-openehr-release-1-0-candidate-uploaded/14511