In een bericht met de datum 25-9-2003 15:10:09 West-Europa (zomertijd), schrijft hammo001 at mc.duke.edu:
> > I agree with Gerard that we need to be careful. However, that does not > mean that we go to the lowest denominator. IF we think SNOMED is the best > solution, then we need to spend our time and energy on finding how to make > SNOMED available to the rest of the world. We have a debate in our school > system in Durham. The poorer kids do not have access to the Internet and > to laptops. The debate is whether to prohibit the use of computers and > Internet for school work or to try to find methods that will provider > laptops and Internet access to the poorer kids. I think the answer is > simple. > > However, I do think it is important to make sure that SNOMED is the answer > and will be acceptable before we move aggressively. > > Ed Hammond > > - > If you have any questions about using this list, > please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org I agree with Ed in that if we can make this resource available, we need to work on that. I think it is OK that HL7 uses SNOMED as preferred terminology. However, I would be very dissapointed if this would become the only terminology that the current v3 RIM and derivates could handle. I believe also local, or specialty or situation specific terminologies / vocabs etc. should be allowed in messages. But maybe I am overreacting, I did not hear / read that this would not be the case. William Goossen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20030925/e072ddfc/attachment.html>
