2 comments on “Terminology and ISO 25964

  1. Very nice series of post Dave! And great to see your use of semantic web standards and ISO models.

    Yes, I agree the ISO11179 model is focused on representing Data Elements, both such we say are the standard and the actual data elements. I’ve not any experience of ISO25964 but it looks like it could be an alternative, or supplementary, model to represent concept based terminologies.
    However, I do struggle with CDISC’s so called Controlled Terms (CTs). I think they are tricky as they aren’t really a true terminology and nor are they true “value sets” as they mix lists of coded variables in long-skinny structures such as labcodes with fixed value sets (e.g severity), and also with value sets you can subset (e.g. patient positions). I’ve wrote a blog post about this two years ago http://kerfors.blogspot.se/2013/10/the-future-of-cdisc-cts.html. And I try to keep updated on this discussion also in the HL7 community.

    1. Kerstin

      Thanks for the comments.

      Agree, the terminology poses many challenges! Also, the new ISO standard (ISO/CD 17583 3 from your blog post) I had heard about but, yet again, getting hold of a copy of the specification (even when it is at the DIS stage) is always a challenge with ISO!

      Next week hopefully write up the ISO21090 and BRIDG elements


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *