Hi, >If the ontology is the listing of "atoms", then Archetypes would appear >to be the "molecules"... and also something that would be helpful to >attempt to standardize across the "interoperability region/domain".
I am not at ease with this comparison. An ontology is "something made to describe" in a given domain. Since the "atoms" of an ontology are only "words" (with a semantic), and you need to make "sentences" to express something, the ontology is not sufficient by itself ; you need a "sentences structure" ; by example a way to record a document as a tree (made of terms from the ontology). Such a system can work alone, since everybody can describe what he wants (writing on a blank page) - but it lacks control, repeatability, and so on. The Archetypes are "forms molds" (like stamps that print the forms you want on the blank page, then fill the form). The Archetypes can work alone (I mean without any ontology) ; you get control and repeatability. So we get two distinct techniques. When do we need/have better mix the both of it ? Clearly, for the ontologists, Archetypes are a good place to store the control mechanisms and ease further data analysis (due to repeatibility of the sentences structures : an Archetype is a kind of pre-elaborated discourse pattern). It is harder to explain why Archetypers would need an ontology. In summary, you need "words" when "signs" are no longer enough ; probably when you want to have people of different kind share the same informations. An ontology is too expensive a component to be used if you don't need it. Regards, Philippe - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
