William E Hammond wrote: >William, > >I do not think you are over reacting. I agree with you. My only point is >that we should be driven by what is best and what is a true solution, and >not by the wrong reasons. I would be most interested in seeing us compile >a list of candidates for terminologies that should be considered and a >process by which we could blend the terminologies. > >I don't know what the best method might be and what organization(s) might >be best for doing the work and distributing the product. What is the level >of trust for the NLM around the world? > Peter Elkin (Mayo) claims to have identified about 40 or so candidate terminologies for use in an open terminology system, according to his paper in MIE 2003.
But I don't believe the correct methodology in this area has yet surfaced. It will start to when small, targetted knowledge models start being used more widely, and terminologists start to see that there is no solution based on the idea of a "single , perfect holy grail terminology". It just doesn't work like that. There are capsules of meaning everywhere which link back into ontologies, and I think that a theory and methodology based on this idea will begin to surface in the next few years. Snomed-ct will be then seen as a best effort without this theory, and may end up being the biggest single resource for re-enginering into a new typology of terminologies / ontologies / small knowledge models (archytpes, HL7 models, guidelines etc). Right now I really think people need to understand that there is still a lot of intellectual work ot go in this area, and that finalising licencing situations will not particularly change things. - thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
