Hi Francois, Hi the list (Since the message was not in french, I think Francois believed he sent it on the list)
To be honnest, it is a tricky field... My point of view can be seen on the page http://www.nautilus-info.com/cone.htm (in french ;o) ) To summarize : - The medical description domain can be seen as a 3D cone (a cone since your description can range from ill/not ill (sharp edge) to a very accurate pathologist description of individual lesions) - Classifications are build in a 3 steps process : 1) choice of a plan that cut the cone at the proper granularity : you get a flat circle that intersect the description cone : the classification domain 2) paving of that plan with small domains delimited by inclusion and exclusion criterions : the classification (each domain is given a code, for example T08) 3) give each small domain a name (for example T08 = Loss of weight) From a given description (a point of the cone), the classification process is done through a "projection" of the description point to the classification domain Then : From step 1) and 2) above, you can see that there is no semantic at all in a classification ; the tricky point is that, due to step 3, people usually give a natural langage name to each domain, and end up thinking the domain T08 "means" Loss of weight. Indeed, it is wrong : sometimes, a genuine loss of weight will be "projected" on another domain, and you could even imagine coding T08 a patient state with no loss of weight (say just low weight). Indeed, T08 just "means" a domain delimited by inclusion and exclusion criterions. There is no semantic behind it. To give you another evidence of this fact, lets return back to ontologies basics : a level 0 ontology is a term list + a semantic network ; the level 0 semantic network is just a set of "is a" links between terms of the list. Test 1 : try to build "is a" relations between codes of a classification. You should not succeed ; if you succeed, it just means that the paving of step 2 has not been done properly, and a domain is included in another. Test 2 : try to build "is a" relations between codes of a classification and terms of an ontology. I don't think you can succed, unless the domains in your classification are restricted to a single point of the description cone. Of course, my description cone model, as any model, has just been built to help me understand (and explain) the differences between classification and description, and thus the reasons why description tools and description purposes are far different from classification tools and classification purposes. Philippe Fran?ois Mennerat answered my message in >Philippe, > >I do not see a great difference. >Does not a coding scheme (as applied to a classification, or to any other >terminological system), or even the classification itself (as any other >terminological system) rely on an implicit or explicit ontology? > >Fran?ois > ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >A 2002-12-09 10:14 +0100, vous avez ?crit : >>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 > - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
