# Values for LINK.meaning **Category:** [RM](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/rm/42) **Created:** 2024-02-08 14:54 UTC **Views:** 383 **Replies:** 5 **URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/values-for-link-meaning/4919 --- ## Post #1 by @emmanuel.eschmann The openEHR specifications mentions (in section https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/common.html#_link_class) that possible values for LINK.meaning are listed in the ISO 13606 specification: “[…] Values for meaning include those described in Annex C, ENV 13606 pt 2 under the categories of generic , documenting and reporting , organisational , clinical , circumstancial , and view management .”. However, the mentioned ISO 13606 specification is not freely accessible and furthermore the preview of ISO 13606 part 2 did only list an Annex A and B and no Annex C. Hence my question: Can the possible values for LINK.meaning mentioned in https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/common.html#_link_class also be found elsewhere? Where? --- ## Post #2 by @damoca Hello @emmanuel.eschmann That reference is in fact completely outdated. ENV 13606 was the pre-norm or experimental norm back in the early 2000s. Then we had EN 13606:2007 and finally now we have ISO 13606:2019. So, at the very least, that mention in the specifications should be updated. The link meaning codes (there called link_description) are located in part 3 of the norm, **ISO 13606-3:2019:Reference archetypes and term lists**. Unfortunately, I'm not aware that they are freely available anywhere. They are a good reference though. > The six categories of terms are: > — **Related to**: a generic category for linking parts of the EHR. > — **Authorised by or confirmed by**: links that connect the documentation of the legal or authoritative basis for an activity documented in another part of the EHR. > — **Related to the same health condition or health problem**: links that connect two health or health care situations, events or activities that pertain to the same healthcare matter. > — **Related to the same clinical process, care plan, healthcare activity or episode of care**: linking parts of the same health condition, clinical process, care plan, healthcare activity or episode of care. > — **Related documentation**: linking alternative documentary forms, such as re-use of pre-existing EHR content in another part of the EHR, the re-expression of the same clinical information, additional supplementary explanatory information or a summary. > — **Plays a role**: linking EHR content to a demographic entity that has played a (structural) role in the information that is documented. Should we consider to "import" those terms as part of the openEHR internal terminologies? --- ## Post #3 by @sebastian.iancu Good question and suggestion @damoca. I think we have to raise a PR Jira ticket on RM and TERM components and then we can discuss them in SEC. Can you do that yourself or should I help you on that? --- ## Post #4 by @damoca Done. https://openehr.atlassian.net/browse/SPECPR-433 --- ## Post #5 by @emmanuel.eschmann Hi @damoca , Thank you very much for your detailed and precise answer, which is very helpful. I will buy the document ISO “13606-3:2019:Reference archetypes and term lists” to get the list of 70+ codes for LINK.meaning that you mention in https://openehr.atlassian.net/browse/SPECPR-433. --- ## Post #6 by @emmanuel.eschmann Thank you @damoca for creating the PR Jira ticket ‘Availability of external terms for LINK class’ ([https://openehr.atlassian.net/browse/SPECPR-433](https://openehr.atlassian.net/browse/SPECPR-433)) and thank you @ian.mcnicoll for your thoughts on the ticket. The last entries on that ticket date back to February 2024, and nothing has happened there in the last 1 1/2 years. What is the current status or planned timeline for this ticket? --- **Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/values-for-link-meaning/4919 **Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/values-for-link-meaning/4919