At 19:28 -0500 9/6/02, Tim Cook wrote: >[many very good points deleted for brevity] > >> > Envision being able to scan a medical record for all partial >dates. >> > Retrieve those dates along with some context of the >CONTRIBUTION. A >> > computer could do very little with that information in most >cases. >> > But a human mind (physician) could probably see >> > relationships/patterns very quickly. > >> Perhaps. Or it could be a mess of obscurantist screen >> junk. But if the mess was organised as the text of a story told by >one human >> being to another at a particular time it might be OK. > >Exactly. > >The implementation of that vision is indeed very tricky. My point >is that the "model" must accommodate it before any attempt at >implementation. > > > >> the other point of course that is very important for usability is >the need for the >> record to present less and less precision as the years recede: > >Really? I had not considered this. Is it really distracting to >'see' a full date? >Does the brain not transform that during the process? Is this >'really important' or is it a 'really cool' technology problem to >conquer?
The _apparent_ need (or acceptability) for less precision in dates as they age is not necessarily true. For example, in retrospective review of 'causes and effects' (eg a drug trial) time _intervals_ will be required to be calculatable at optimum precision. A general principle is, surely, that we can't and should not anticipate the future use/value of any of the data! Tony Grivell >--- >Tim Cook > > >- >If you have any questions about using this list, >please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org -- .......................ooOoo........................... - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
