EN ISO 17117-1:2023

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-november-2023
Zdravstvena informatika - Terminološki viri - 1. del: Značilnosti (ISO 17117-1:2018)
Health informatics - Terminological resources - Part 1: Characteristics (ISO 17117-
1:2018)
Medizinische Informatik - Terminologische Ressourcen - Teil 1: Merkmale(ISO 17117-
1:2018)
Informatique de santé - Ressources terminologiques - Partie 1: Caractéristiques (ISO
17117-1:2018)
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: EN ISO 17117-1:2023
ICS:
01.020 Terminologija (načela in Terminology (principles and
koordinacija) coordination)
35.240.80 Uporabniške rešitve IT v IT applications in health care
zdravstveni tehniki technology
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

EN ISO 17117-1
EUROPEAN STANDARD
NORME EUROPÉENNE
July 2023
EUROPÄISCHE NORM
ICS 01.020; 35.240.80
English Version
Health informatics - Terminological resources - Part 1:
Characteristics (ISO 17117-1:2018)
Informatique de santé - Ressources terminologiques - Medizinische Informatik - Terminologische Ressourcen
Partie 1: Caractéristiques (ISO 17117-1:2018) - Teil 1: Merkmale (ISO 17117-1:2018)
This European Standard was approved by CEN on 16 July 2023.

CEN members are bound to comply with the CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations which stipulate the conditions for giving this
European Standard the status of a national standard without any alteration. Up-to-date lists and bibliographical references
concerning such national standards may be obtained on application to the CEN-CENELEC Management Centre or to any CEN
member.
This European Standard exists in three official versions (English, French, German). A version in any other language made by
translation under the responsibility of a CEN member into its own language and notified to the CEN-CENELEC Management
Centre has the same status as the official versions.

CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye and
United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION

EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG

CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels
© 2023 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. EN ISO 17117-1:2023 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.

Contents Page
European foreword . 3

European foreword
The text of ISO 17117-1:2018 has been prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 215 "Health
informatics” of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and has been taken over as
which is held by NEN.
This European Standard shall be given the status of a national standard, either by publication of an
identical text or by endorsement, at the latest by January 2024, and conflicting national standards shall
be withdrawn at the latest by January 2024.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
Any feedback and questions on this document should be directed to the users’ national standards body.
A complete listing of these bodies can be found on the CEN website.
According to the CEN-CENELEC Internal Regulations, the national standards organizations of the
following countries are bound to implement this European Standard: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of
North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye and the
United Kingdom.
Endorsement notice
The text of ISO 17117-1:2018 has been approved by CEN as EN ISO 17117-1:2023 without any
modification.
INTERNATIONAL ISO
STANDARD 17117-1
First edition
2018-04
Health informatics — Terminological
resources —
Part 1:
Characteristics
Informatique de santé — Ressources terminologiques —
Partie 1: Caractéristiques
Reference number
ISO 17117-1:2018(E)
©
ISO 2018
ISO 17117-1:2018(E)
© ISO 2018
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, or required in the context of its implementation, no part of this publication may
be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting
on the internet or an intranet, without prior written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address
below or ISO’s member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
CP 401 • Ch. de Blandonnet 8
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva
Phone: +41 22 749 01 11
Fax: +41 22 749 09 47
Email: copyright@iso.org
Website: www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
ii © ISO 2018 – All rights reserved

ISO 17117-1:2018(E)
Contents Page
Foreword .iv
Introduction .v
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 2
3 Terms and definitions . 2
4 Characteristics of terminological resources in the health domain .8
4.1 Basics . 8
4.2 Pre-coordinated characteristics aiming at identification of a specific concept/term . 9
4.2.1 Term identifier . 9
4.2.2 Concept identifier . 9
4.2.3 Concept orientation . .10
4.3 Characteristics related to extensibility for concept representations .10
4.3.1 Characteristics to specify more detailed concepts .10
4.3.2 Characteristics to broaden coverage of concepts .11
4.4 Characteristics related to data aggregation or classification .12
4.4.1 General.12
4.4.2 Mutual exclusiveness.12
4.4.3 Exhaustiveness .12
4.5 Characteristics related to formal concept representation and semantic interoperability .12
4.5.1 Compositionality .12
4.5.2 Hierarchical relation .13
4.5.3 Associative relation .14
4.5.4 Categorial structure .14
4.5.5 Semantic consistency .14
4.6 Characteristics related to maintenance of terminological resources .15
4.6.1 Context-free identifiers .15
4.6.2 Persistence of identifiers .15
4.6.3 Version identifier .15
4.6.4 Editorial information .15
4.6.5 Obsolete marking .15
4.6.6 Responsiveness .16
5 Functions invoked by a certain set of characteristics .16
5.1 Basics .16
5.2 Data capture .16
5.2.1 General.16
5.2.2 Extensibility for concept representation .17
5.2.3 Providing semantically consistent formal concept representation .17
5.3 Display/presentation/identification .17
5.3.1 General.17
5.3.2 Accessing concepts using terminology structure .18
5.4 Data aggregation for statistical analysis .18
5.5 Reasoning .19
5.5.1 Reasoning of internal consistency .19
5.6 Maintenance-related functions .19
5.6.1 Concept permanence.19
5.6.2 Version control .20
Annex A (informative) Selected definitions from ISO 1087-1 .21
Annex B (informative) Relations between characteristics, functions, requirements and
evaluation criteria of terminological resources .28
Annex C (informative) Relations among terminological resources .29
Bibliography .30
ISO 17117-1:2018(E)
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical
committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of
electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are
described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular the different approval criteria needed for the
different types of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the
editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www .iso .org/directives).
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of
any patent rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or
on the ISO list of patent declarations received (see www .iso .org/patents).
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation on the voluntary nature of standards, the meaning of ISO specific terms and
expressions related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISO's adherence to the
World Trade Organization (WTO) principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) see the following
URL: www .iso .org/iso/foreword .html.
This document was prepared by ISO/TC 215, Health informatics.
This first edition of ISO 17117-1 cancels and replaces ISO/TS 17117:2002, which has been technically
revised.
A list of all the parts of ISO 17117 is available on the ISO website.
iv © ISO 2018 – All rights reserved

ISO 17117-1:2018(E)
Introduction
Health terminology is complex and multifaceted. It has been estimated that up to 45 million different
terms are needed to adequately describe health-related concepts like conditions of patients and
populations, actions in healthcare and related concepts, such as medicines, biomedical molecules,
[3]
genes, organisms, technical methods and social concepts . Many formal and less formal terminological
resources exist to represent this complexity. These may be called terminological systems, coding
systems, formal concept representation systems, classification systems, and others. Specific features
of different terminological resources make them more or less useful for particular purposes and
technological environments.
The need for formal terminological resources to support health information management has
[6][7][8]
been widely recognized . Such resources are required for precise data collection, accurate
[7]
interpretation of data and interoperability among information systems that exchange such data .
National governments, healthcare organizations and others are currently concerned with the question
of which of the available terminological resources will meet their requirements, i.e. they wish to
‘assign value’ to specific terminological resources to decide which are suitable for their purposes and
healthcare contexts.
A set of criteria to support such evaluations was originally published by ISO in 2002 (ISO/TS 17117). The
main purpose was to enable users to assess whether a terminological resource has the characteristics
that will support their specified requirements, since the characteristics of a terminological resource
influence its utility and appropriateness in applications. There has been much progress in the study and
[9][10]
use of terminological resources since that time and some experience of formal evaluations . This
revision updates the original Technical Specification with a revised scope and purpose commensurate
with present and future healthcare and technology contexts, incorporating new definitional standards
where relevant.
As the first part of the entire revision work, this document (ISO 17117-1) identifies the characteristics of
terminological resources in healthcare (Clause 4) and functions or roles invoked by those characteristics
(Clause 5). This document also provides a framework to identify different types of terminological
resources using a combination of those characteristics and functions, which is essential for the
development of criteria for the categorization of terminological resources in healthcare. Requirements
for, and evaluation criteria of, terminological resources in healthcare, which will be addressed in the
future parts of ISO 17117, are tightly related to the characteristics of terminological resources and
functions that they can provide.
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO 17117-1:2018(E)
Health informatics — Terminological resources —
Part 1:
Characteristics
1 Scope
This document defines universal and specialized characteristics of health terminological resources
that make them fit for the purposes required of various applications. It refers only to terminological
resources that are primarily designed to be used for clinical concept representation or to those parts of
other terminological resources designed to be used for clinical concept representation.
This document helps users to assess whether a terminology has the characteristics or provides
the functions that will support their specified requirements. The focus of this document is to define
characteristics and functions of terminological resources in healthcare that can be used to identify
different types of them for categorization purposes. Clauses 4 and 5 support categorization according
to the characteristics and functions of the terminological resources rather than the name.
NOTE Categorization of healthcare terminological systems according to the name of the system might not be
helpful and has caused confusion in the past.
The target groups for this document are:
a) organizations wishing to select terminological systems for use in healthcare information systems;
b) developers of terminological systems;
c) developers of terminology standards;
d) those undertaking independent evaluations/academic reviews of terminological resources;
e) terminology Registration Authorities.
This document contains general characteristics and criteria with which systems can be evaluated.
The following considerations are outside the scope of this document.
— Evaluations of terminological resources.
— Health service requirements for terminological resources and evaluation criteria based on the
characteristics and functions.
— The nature and quality of mappings between different terminologies. It is unlikely that a single
terminology will meet all the terminology requirements of a healthcare organization: some
terminology providers produce mappings to administrative or statistical classifications such as the
International Classification of Diseases (ICD). The presence of such maps would be a consideration
in the evaluation of the terminology.
— The nature and quality of mappings between different versions of the same terminology. To support
data migration and historical retrieval, terminology providers can provide maps between versions
of their terminology. The presence of such maps would be a consideration in the evaluation of the
terminology.
— Terminology server requirements and techniques and tools for terminology developers.
— Characteristics for computational biology terminology. Progress in medical science and in
terminology science will necessitate updating of this document in due course.
ISO 17117-1:2018(E)
2 Normative references
There are no normative references in this document.
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at http: //www .iso .org/obp
— IEC Electropedia: available at http: //www .electropedia .org/
NOTE Selected terms from ISO 1087-1 are given in Annex A as background to the terms and definitions in
Clause 3.
3.1 General terms
3.1.1
concept
unit of knowledge created by a unique combination of characteristics
Note 1 to entry: Informally, the term ‘concept’ is often used when what is meant is ‘concept representation’.
However, this leads to confusion when precise meanings are required. Concepts arise out of human individual
and social conceptualizations of the world around them. Concept representations are artefacts constructed of
symbols.
Note 2 to entry: Concept representations are not necessarily bound to particular languages. However, they are
influenced by the social or cultural context of use often leading to different categorizations.
[SOURCE: ISO 1087-1:2000, 3.2.1, modified]
3.1.2
term
linguistic representation of a concept in a specific subject field
[SOURCE: ISO 1087-1:2000, 3.4.3, modified]
3.1.3
characteristic
abstraction of a property of an object or of a set of objects
[SOURCE: ISO 1087-1:2000, 3.2.4]
3.1.4
term identifier
sequence of letters, numbers or symbols, capable of uniquely identifying a term within the terminological
resource
Note 1 to entry: Term identifier shall be unique within the terminological resource.
3.1.5
concept identifier
canonical expression (3.3.5), or sequence of letters, numbers or symbols, capable of uniquely identifying
a concept within the terminological resource
Note 1 to entry: Concept identifier shall be unique within the terminological resource, so terms shall not be used
for the purpose here in case polysemy exists.
2 © ISO 2018 – All rights reserved

ISO 17117-1:2018(E)
3.1.6
code
identifier expressed by a series of letters, numbers, or symbols
Note 1 to entry: A code is a concept identifier (3.1.5) when used in a coding system (3.4.4).
3.1.7
terminological resource identifier
unique permanent identifier of a terminological resource (3.4.1) for use in information interchange
Note 1 to entry: This is equivalent to Health Coding Scheme Designator in EN 1068:2005 for registration of
coding systems.
Note 2 to entry: Globally unique schemes such as OIDs, UUIDs, and URIs may be used for this purpose.
3.1.8
terminological resource version identifier
version identifier
identifier assigned to a version under which a terminological resource (3.4.1) is published or updated
3.1.9
coding scheme
collection of rules that maps the elements in one set, the “coded set”, onto the elements in a second set,
“the code set”
Note 1 to entry: The two sets are not part of the coding scheme.
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.7.2, modified]
3.1.10
composite characteristic
representation of a characteristic (3.1.3)
EXAMPLE has Cause Bacteria; Location = LeftUpperLobeOfLung.
Note 1 to entry: Typically expressed by a semantic link (3.2.5) and a characterizing concept (3.1.11).
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.2.1]
3.1.11
characterizing concept
concept that is referenced by a semantic link (3.2.5) in a composite characteristic (3.1.10)
EXAMPLE “Bacterium” in the construct “Disease that has Cause Bacterium”; “Yellow” in the construct “Skin
Lesion that has Colour Yellow”.
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.2.2]
3.1.12
characterizing generic concept
characterizing category
value domain
formal category whose specialization by a domain constraint (3.1.14) is allowed to be used as
characterizing concept (3.1.11) in a particular context
EXAMPLE 1 = {bacterium, virus, parasite}, in the context of “infection that has
Cause INFECTIOUS_ORGANISM”.
EXAMPLE 2 has Cause Bacteria; Location = LeftUpperLobeOfLung.
Note 1 to entry: The context includes a superordinate concept and a semantic link.
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.3.3]
ISO 17117-1:2018(E)
3.1.13
sanctioned characteristic
formal representation of a type of characteristics (3.1.3)
EXAMPLE 1 performed Using ; hasLocation .
EXAMPLE 2 “Cause Of Inflammation can Be set {bacteria, virus, parasite, autoimmune, chemical, physical}”,
where “can Be” is the semantic link, and “set{bacteria, virus, parasite, autoimmune, chemical, physical}” is the
characterizing generic concept.
Note 1 to entry: A sanctioned characteristic is typically made up of a combination of a semantic link (3.2.5) and a
characterizing generic concept (3.1.12), and can be used in domain constraints (3.1.14).
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.3.1]
3.1.14
domain constraint
sanction rule prescribing the set of sanctioned characteristics (3.1.13) that are valid to specialize a
concept in a certain subject field
EXAMPLE “Infection possibly has Location Skeletal Structure” describes that an infection in a certain
context can be located in a structure that is a kind of skeletal structure.
Note 1 to entry: The rule describes the set of potential characteristics by combining the semantic link (3.2.5)
and the characterizing generic concept (3.1.12) it links to, possibly by enumeration of the concepts in the
characterizing generic concept.
Note 2 to entry: Different levels of sanctioning are possible (e.g. conceivable, sensible, normal, usually In The
Context Of, necessary).
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.3.2]
3.2 Relations between concepts
3.2.1
generic relation
generalization-specialization relation
relation between two concepts where the intension of one of the concepts includes that of the other
concept and at least one additional delimiting characteristic
Note 1 to entry: A generic relation exists between the concepts ‘word’ and ‘pronoun’, ‘vehicle’ and ‘car’, ‘person’
and ‘child’.
Note 2 to entry: This relation is equivalent to ‘parent-child’ or ‘is-a’ relation. The child concept has the same
intension as the parent concept and at least one additional delimiting characteristic. Also the same in X ‘is-a’ Y.
Note 3 to entry: The use of the term ‘relation’ from an English perspective means that this is describing the
concept (i.e. this concept is a generic relation of another concept) not the relationship. However, the ‘generic
relation’ here means the relationship itself, not a concept.
[SOURCE: ISO 1087-1:2000, 3.2.21, modified]
3.2.2
partitive relation
whole-part relation
relation between two concepts where one of the concepts constitutes the whole and the other concept
a part of that whole
Note 1 to entry: A partitive relation exists between the concepts ‘week’ and ‘day’, ‘molecule’ and ‘atom’.
Note 2 to entry: This relation is different from generic relation (3.2.1). For example, a day is part of a week, but is
not a specialization of a week, i.e. it is not a type of week.
[SOURCE: ISO 1087-1:2000, 3.2.22, modified]
4 © ISO 2018 – All rights reserved

ISO 17117-1:2018(E)
3.2.3
hierarchical relation
relation between two concepts which may be either a generic relation (3.2.1) or a partitive relation (3.2.2)
EXAMPLE Relations such as ‘stomach’ ↔ ‘organ’ and ‘stomach’ ↔ ‘body’ are hierarchical relations, but the
former is a generic relation and the latter is a partitive relation.
Note 1 to entry: Partitive relations (3.2.2) have several sub-types, such as “constitutional part of”, “regional part
of”, “grouped by”, and so on, which are also hierarchical types of relations.
Note 2 to entry: A characteristic which is explicitly identified in the terminological resource may be used to
determine a hierarchy, and includes declaration of directionality. There may be more than one such characteristic
in which case the terminological resource can be said to have “poly-hierarchy”. The characteristic must have a
value in the two concepts at either end of the relation which can be compared to determine the hierarchy.
[SOURCE: ISO 1087-1:2000, 3.2.20, modified]
3.2.4
associative relation
pragmatic relation
relation between two concepts having a non-hierarchical thematic connection by virtue of experience
EXAMPLE The relation between disease “X” and virus “Y” is not a hierarchical but an associative relation.
The relation exists under a certain theme of interest (e.g. “a disease and its causative agent”) and explicitly
recognized by virtue of experience.
[SOURCE: ISO 1087-1:2000, 3.2.23, modified]
3.2.5
semantic link
formal representation of a directed associative relation (3.2.4) or partitive relation (3.2.2) between two
concepts
EXAMPLE hasCause (with inverse isCauseOf).
Note 1 to entry: This includes all relations except the generic relation (3.2.1)
Note 2 to entry: A semantic link always has an inverse, i.e. another semantic link with the opposite direction.
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.2.3]
3.3 Formal concept representation
3.3.1
axiomatic concept representation
atomic concept representation
concept representation that is not composed of other simpler concept representations within a formal
(concept representation) system (3.4.7)
EXAMPLE ‘Liver’, ‘Incision act’, ‘Pain’
Note 1 to entry: In many cases, axiomatic concept representations will correspond to what philosophers call
“natural kinds”. Such an entity cannot be meaningfully decomposed. These should form the basis of all concept
representations.
Note 2 to entry: A coding system may include axiomatic concept representations as well as compositional concept
representations required for different use cases.
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.4.2, modified]
ISO 17117-1:2018(E)
3.3.2
compositional concept representation
composite concept representation
intensional definition of a concept using as delimiting characteristics one or more composite
characteristics (3.1.10)
Note 1 to entry: Each characterizing concept (3.1.11) in a composite characteristic (3.1.10) may be axiomatic
concept representation (3.3.1) or another compositional concept representation.
Note 2 to entry: This allows inference of subsumption within a formal (concept representation) system (3.4.7). It is
often expressed in a formalism, such as description logic.
Note 3 to entry: Compositional concept representation can be further divided into pre-coordinated concept
representation (3.3.3) and post-coordinated concept representation (3.3.4).
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.4.1, modified]
3.3.3
pre-coordinated concept representation
compositional concept representation (3.3.2) predefined within a formal (concept representation) system
(3.4.7), with an equivalent single unique concept identifier
EXAMPLE In SNOMED CT, “cancer of colon” is predefined and has a single unique identifier, which means
to the SNOMED CT that it represents a “single” concept. However, “colon” is a synonym for “colon structure”
and “cancer” is a synonym for “malignant neoplastic disease” in SNOMED CT. Therefore, “colon cancer” is non-
atomic as it can be broken down into compositional concept representation (e.g. “cancer of colon” = “malignant
neoplastic disease” < Finding_Site: “colon structure”>.).
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.4.6, modified]
3.3.4
post-coordinated concept representation
compositional concept representation (3.3.2), which is not pre-coordinated and therefore shall be
represented using more than one concept from one or many compositional systems (3.4.5), combined
using mechanisms within or outside the compositional systems
EXAMPLE 1 Problem.Main = Fracture, Problem.Location = Femur (within a template for a problem
description).
EXAMPLE 2 Some common terminological resources, such as IETF BCP-47 for language tags, explicitly
construct post-coordinated concept representations from disparate coding systems for language, script, region,
and so on.
Note 1 to entry: Combining concepts from disparate terminologies can cause problems with overlapping and/
or conflicting concepts, because there might be various ways to form compositional concept representations for
the same concept. Typically, the mechanisms for making compositional concept representations across disparate
terminological resources are specified in an information model (e.g. as templates for a certain type of concept).
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.4.7, modified]
3.3.5
canonical expression
concept name
term (3.1.2) which uniquely designates a concept within a terminological system (3.4.2)
EXAMPLE 1 Machine readable: >(with
compositional characteristics sorted alphabetically after semantic link) instead of hasCause Bacteria>
EXAMPLE 2 General language: Inflammation that has cause bacteria and has location lung (with compositional
characteristics sorted alphabetically after semantic link) instead of pulmonary infection that has cause bacteria.
Note 1 to entry: It is unique within the system and unambiguous.
6 © ISO 2018 – All rights reserved

ISO 17117-1:2018(E)
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.4.4, modified]
3.3.6
categorial structure
minimal set of domain constraints (3.1.14) for representing terminological systems (3.4.2) in a subject field
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.4.5, modified]
3.4 Terminological resources (in health domain)
3.4.1
terminological resource
controlled set of terms (3.1.2) in health domain
Note 1 to entry: Usually designed and controlled for use with computers for a specific purpose in the health
domain, such as data entry, aggregation, retrieval and analysis. Accordingly, it has usability characteristics in
health domain as described in Clause 4.
Note 2 to entry: It has a generic relation to the following types (3.4.2 to 3.4.7).
3.4.2
terminological system
terminology
concept representation system
structured human and machine-readable representation of health concepts and relationships
Note 1 to entry: Every terminological system shall be organized by hierarchical relations (3.2.3) and/or associative
relations (3.2.4). Typically, most terminological systems are organized by hierarchical relations.
Note 2 to entry: Every terminological system shall have term representations of health concepts for human-
readability.
Note 3 to entry: It is used directly or indirectly to describe health concepts such as health conditions and
healthcare activities, and allow their subsequent retrieval for analysis.
3.4.3
classification system
statistical classification
classification
terminological resource which has characteristics of mutual exclusiveness and exhaustiveness to
aggregate data to a pre-prescribed level of specialization for a specific purpose
Note 1 to entry: Both of the two additional characteristics are indispensable to provide data aggregation function
(5.4), and accordingly, to suit the use case for statistical analysis and data aggregation.
Note 2 to entry: It usually includes hierarchical relations (3.2.3) as well as definitions and rules for use but might
not, as in the example simple classification of gender: Male, Female.
Note 3 to entry: It does not necessarily consist of a pre-defined exhaustive set of mutually exclusive categories.
Some classification systems may have explicit rules to enable mutual exclusiveness.
3.4.4
coding system
combination of a set of concepts (coded concepts) (3.1.1), a set of code (3.1.6) values, and at least one
coding scheme (3.1.9) mapping code values to coded concepts
Note 1 to entry: Coded concepts are typically represented by terms, but can have other representation. Code
values are typically numeric or alphanumeric.
Note 2 to entry: Coding systems without organization by hierarchical relations and/or associative relations, such
as ISO 3166-1 for country codes, are not terminological systems.
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.7.3, modified]
ISO 17117-1:2018(E)
3.4.5
compositional system
compositional terminology
terminological system (3.4.2) that supports the creation of compositional concept representation (3.3.2)
Note 1 to entry: The definition is equivalent to “a terminological system that has an ability of post-coordination.”
It does not preclude that a compositional system also includes axiomatic and pre-coordinated concepts.
Note 2 to entry: Pre-defined concepts in a compositional system are not necessarily represented as compositional
concept representation (3.3.2), since pre-defined concepts may include axiomatic concepts.
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.5.2, modified]
3.4.6
nomenclature
compositional system (3.4.5) structured systematically according to pre-established naming rules
EXAMPLE 1 Naming rules for a family of molecules such as ‘—ane’, ‘—ene’, ‘halo—‘, ‘hydroxyl—‘ in prefix or
suffix is an example of pre-established naming rules in the compositional concept creation.
EXAMPLE 2 In SNOMED CT, “fully specified names” use a number of pre-established naming rules.
[SOURCE: ISO 1087-1:2000, 3.5.3, modified]
3.4.7
formal (concept representation) system
compositional system (3.4.5) with a set of machine processable definitions in a subject field
Note 1 to entry: Each definition of a pre-defined concept shall be an axiomatic concept representation (3.3.1), a
compositional concept representation (3.3.2) or a formal extensional definition.
[SOURCE: ISO 17115:2007, 2.5.1, modified]
4 Characteristics of terminological resources in the health domain
4.1 Basics
The characteristics of a terminological resource influence its utility and appropriateness in clinical
applications. Terminological resources should be evaluated within the context of their stated scope and
purpose and are intended to complement and utilize those notions already identified by other national
and international standards bodies.
This document explicitly refers only to terminological resources that are primarily designed to be used
for health concept representation or to the aspect of a terminological resource designed to be used
for health concept representation. This document will also provide terminological resource developers
and users with the basic characteristics and functions invoked by those characteristics that should
be taken into account on the occasion of assessing whether a terminological resource meets their
requirements. These tenets do not attempt to specify all the richness that can be incorporated into a
healthcare terminological resource. However, this document does specify the minimal characteristics,
which will ensure that the terminological resource can provide the functions that are indispensable for
the requirements on it. Figure 1 illustrates how those components are related to each other.
8 © ISO 2018 – All rights reserved

ISO 17117-1:2018(E)
Figure 1 — Relations among the components in ISO 17117
This document will also provide terminology developers with a sturdy starting point for the development
of healthcare terminological resources. This foundation serves as the basis from which terminology
developers will build robust, large-scale, reliable and maintainable terminological resources.
Some classes of terminological resources defined in Clause 3 may have overlaps. For example,
classification systems (3.4.3) are typically coding systems (3.4.4). Each class of terminological resource
defined in Clause 3 may have several characteristics defined in this clause. To assess whether a
terminological resource meets the applicable requirements, it is necessary for users and developers to
pay considerable attention to the characteristics the terminological resource has and functions invoked
by those characteristics, rather than its class name.
Annex B gives relations between characteristics, functions, requirements and evaluation criteria of
terminological resources. Relations among terminological resources are given in Annex C.
4.2 Pre-coordinated characteristics aiming at identification of a specific concept/term
4.2.1 Term identifier
Every term in a terminological resource should have a term identifier (3.1.4).
EXAMPLE 1 In UMLS, the term ‘headache’ has the lexical unique identifier (LUI) ‘L0018681’, which is an
example of a term identifier at the ‘lexical’ level according to the definition in UMLS. Each LUI is also related
to one or more lexical variants, such as upper-lower case or punctuation difference, each of which is assigned a
string unique identifier called SUI. For example, ‘Headache’ has SUI ‘S0046854’ and ‘headaches’ has ‘S1459113’,
which are also examples of term identifiers at the ‘string’ level. Since UMLS is a meta-thesaurus which provides
a mapping structure among vocabularies, every occurrence of a string in each source vocabulary is assigned a
unique identifier called atom unique identifier (AUI). In this example, th
...