What I wrote was (in other words) I see no difference (on a certain level) between natural language and an artificial one like ENV 13606 plus ICD-x or any other classfication and terminological system.
Gf n 2002-12-18 17:00, "Thomas Beale" <thomas at deepthought.com.au> wrote: > > > 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". >> > Hi Gerard, > > we need to be specific here: what are the attributes? I think that for > example ICD10 (version = "10" or are there interim releases?) does not > tell you the language. As far as I know, people get ICD10 in a file in > whatever their language is and just call it "ICD10" - I don't know of a > formal naming scheme for it including 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. >> > well I see plenty! But we are probably talking about different things > here... > > - thomas beale > > > > - > 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
