ADL / AOM TERMINOLOGY BINDING Thursday, March 6, 2014

Types of terminology binding (Taken from Linda Bird’s Presentation)Linda Bird’s Presentation Value binding – References one or more values that may be used to populate the information model artefact Semantic binding – Uses the terminology artefact to define the meaning of the information model artefact Template binding – Indicates how values recorded in two or more fields may be combined to represent a composite meaning Inter-field binding – Constrains the value of one data element based on the value of another, where at least one of these data elements is coded.

Archetype Terminology Archetypes Use Terminology for: (Object) Node Identifiers (Semantic Binding) Permissible values (Value Binding) – Small sets (Enumerations) – Internal formal sets (Value sets) – External sets (Defined value sets) Paths (Template / Inter-field) Thursday, March 6, 2014

ADL 1.5 renamed the 'ontology' section 'terminology’ 'id-codes' are now a real thing - i.e. where we had CLUSTER [at0004] we would now have CLUSTER [id4] 'at-codes' are used only for value terms, not for identifier 'terms’ id-codes have their own id_definitions section in the archetype terminology id-codes are mandatory on every node in an archetypeFor the moment, only paths have to be unique, not individual node ids.

Sample Archetype

Object Node Identifiers

Permissible Values (Small Sets)

Permissible Values Internal Formal Sets

Permissible Values External Sets

CIMI Terminology ADL / AOM pattern is good ‘idn’ codes are ADL specific – Different forms work as well as well as identifiers are unique Paths are arguably ADL specific as well – Other modeling forms have similar mechanisms in place that accomplish the same goal

Identity in Terminology ‘id1’ in body temperature archetype vs. ‘id1’ in musical instrument archetype Solution is scoping namespace (e.g. body temperature archetype) + name Scoping namespace must be unique – Solution is scoping namespace for namespace… Scoping namespaces of namespaces must be…

Identity in CIMI terminology Scoping NamespaceIdentifier Scoping NamespaceIdentifier Scoping Namespace Identifier

Identity in CIMI Terminology Why “http”? Why “http” (vs. DCE UUID’s, ISO Object Identifiers, Digital Object Identifiers)? Answer: Because the “http” identifier scheme: Is in place and works Is (mostly) non-forgeable Is distributed Is federated Has a reasonable pricing scheme Is available to anyone with an internet connection

Identity in CIMI Terminology Why “http”? Why “http” (vs. DCE UUID’s, ISO Object Identifiers, Digital Object Identifiers)? Answer: Because the “http” identifier scheme: Is in place and works Is (mostly) non-forgeable Is distributed Is federated Has a reasonable pricing scheme Is available to anyone with an internet connection … AND … HTTP services are based on Resource Oriented Architecture

Identity in CIMI Terminology Resource-Oriented Architecture “That's the Resource-Oriented Architecture. It's just four concepts: 1. Resources 2. Their names (URIs) 3. Their representations 4. The links between them and four properties: 1. Addressability 2. Statelessness 3. Connectedness 4. A uniform interface” RESTFul Web Services – Richardson and Ruby, O’Reilly Media,

Using ROA What is the type resource that we are identifying? How is it represented? (i.e. what are its properties?) What are its ‘rigid’ properties (aka. Identity)? What resources does it link to?

A note on URI ‘semantics’ Competing goals URI’s should be easy to create and manage – URI’s should be easy to read from a human perspective URI’s cannot be “readable” from an automation perspective (!!!!!) – and are no more or less similar than and – The only way software can determine relatedeness is by dereferencing both URI’s and decoding the underlying description. Note: (arguably) software can make inferences about things before the “?”…

Identity and Versions “Dissimilarity of the Diverse” (John McTaggart): “if x and y are distinct then there is at least one property that x has and y does not, or vice versa.” (Lebiniz’s law of indiscernables) This is the easy part. Version ‘1’ and Version ‘X’ are different because they came out on different dates, represent different things, etc… The hard part: How do we assert that Version ‘1’ and Version ‘2’ are versions of the same thing? – We have 3 resources – v1 of X, v2 of X and… X!

Correlary From the modeling perspective, to be considered a “resource” an element must: Have a unique identity Have at least one rigid property – a property that, if it changes you have a different resource – Things that lack this characteristic are probably parts of models (think ‘CLUSTER’) Have at least one non-rigid property – Things that lack this characteristic are called “data types”

Versions and URI Semantics is something different than -Humans can tell that there is (probably) a relationship -Machines cannot (or should not) -There are (at least) 3 resources here, but we’ve only got 2 identifiers

Version and URI Semantics So do we need to dereference a URI to tell the difference? – A: No – it may not even be possible. What we do instead is recognize the (obvious) situation that there are several things. Using ICD-10 1.The ICD-10 category, “Secondary and unspecified malignant neoplasm: Intrathoracic lymph nodes” 2.The ICD-10 identifier “C77.1” 3.The description of the identifier, “C77.1” that appeared in the 2008 release of ICD-10 4.The description of the identifier, “C77.1” that appeared in the 2010 release of ICD-10 5.ICD-10 itself (!)

How do we identify each of these 1.The ICD-10 category, “Secondary and unspecified malignant neoplasm: Intrathoracic lymph nodes” – Out of scope (see ICD-11, however) 2.The ICD-10 identifier “C77.1” – //id.who.int/icd/10/C The description of the identifier, “C77.1” that appeared in the 2008 release of ICD-10 - //id.who.int/icd/10/2008/C The description of the identifier, “C77.1” that appeared in the 2010 release of ICD-10 - //id.who.int/icd/10/2010/C ICD-10 itself (!) - //id.who.int/icd/10, //id.who.int/icd/10/2008 //id.who.int/icd/2010

Terminology and CIMI Resources include: Archetype Archetype version (‘version’ vs. ‘release’ have to be discussed) Archetype Terminology (? – may not be necessary) Archetype Object Archetype Object Identifier (?) Terminological description of archetype object Value set Internal value set definition Internal value set code Internal value set code description External value set

Proposed Model

Terminology and CIMI Resources include: Archetype Archetype version Archetype Terminology (? – may not be necessary) Archetype Object Archetype Object Identifier (?) Terminological description of archetype object (LocalURI – CTS2 form) /entity/{ns}:{id} or /entitybyuri?uri= Value set Internal value set definition Internal value set code Internal value set code description External value set Value Set resolution

Identifier question Each ADL object constraint has an identifier (e.g. ‘id1’, ‘id2’, etc.) Scope can be at Archetype level, meaning that (almost) every node is uniquely identifiable by ‘ : ’ Specialization can be explicitly modeled: arch1:id17 specializedBy arch2:id42 What of slots and proxies (where root is renamed, but internal nodes stay the same)? Thursday, March 6, 2014