Hi, Since I missed the starting point of this thread, I may un-properly answer ; however I can say from the work we are doing that there is a great difference between a system based on an ontology and a system based on free text annotated by a coding system.
The fist one allows structured description (knowledge management field) while the other remains in the field of classification (data management : text index keeping and epidemiology). Philippe At 08:43 08/12/2002 +0100, Gerard Freriks wrote: >Hi, > >My thoughts. > >If we assume that a code plus description plus coding system, etc as a unit >of information them the coding system and the version plus some more >attributes will indicate the "language". >Equally we can assume that any piece of text (not coded using a >classification or terminology) is coded using a code, descriptive text, >grammar, a coding system and version number plus some more attributes. >I see no difference between the handling of raw text and coding ro >terminological systems. > >Handle both in the same generic way. > >Gerard > > >On 2002-12-05 18:59, "Dipak Kalra" <d.kalra at chime.ucl.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Dear Tom, > > > > Sorry for the delay in replying. My remark was describing a situation > > that I believe to be realistic - that a health care session might take > > place in more than one language e.g. via an advocate or a relative. > > > > If one stipulates that the set of coded terms within a whole > > Transaction must be recorded in one language, then clearly that does > > suggest a different rule needs to be offered for plain text. However, I > > was not necessarily implying that it is right for a whole Transaction > > to be in one language, although I could see Sam's reasons for proposing > > this, merely that this clinical scenario is a complication that needs > > to be considered. I note that Sam has suggested an alternative proposal > > - of linking together two transactions, one in each language. I am not > > sure how this would work for documenting a more interactive situation. > > > > At this stage, I would prefer us to be exploratory about the various > > scenarios in which language issues arise and then to revisit our model. > > I am suspicious that our present approach might not be sufficient, but > > it may also be that I am being too fanciful in my ideas about how > > multi-lingual consultations might work. I was not at this stage > > intending to imply a particular information modelling approach to > > meeting this requirement. > > > > With best wishes, > > > > Dipak > > ________________________________________________________ > > Dr Dipak Kalra > > Senior Clinical Lecturer in Health Informatics > > CHIME, University College London > > Holborn Union Building, Highgate Hill, London N19 5LW > > Direct Line: +44-20-7288-3362 > > Fax: +44-20-7288-3322 > > Web site: http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk > > > > - > > If you have any questions about using this list, > > please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org > >-- <private> -- >Gerard Freriks, arts >Huigsloterdijk 378 >2158 LR Buitenkaag >The Netherlands > >+31 252 544896 >+31 654 792800 > > >- >If you have any questions about using this list, >please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
