Hi Philippe, Well I started in the domain 20 weeks ago and I didn't know anything back then (in the old days). I'm currently on my way of finishing my master's thesis, so I cannot say I have the experience to answer your questions ;-)
PS. Your questions are sensible though, no offense Cheers, Mattias > Hi Mattias, > > The more I work on medical information systems, and the less I > believe > that the structure is more important than the terminology. > > To be a little bit more accurate, my opinion is that any health > information system is there to "tell stories". > I started in the domain 20 years ago with endoscopy reports : the > story > to tell was a 10 to 20 minutes medical act. Now, for many reasons > (but > it would be too long to explain it there), the "big thing" is > continuity > of care, and the challenge is to be able to tell someone's whole > medical > journey. > > So, how can we tell these stories (from a 10 minutes encounter to > the > whole life and the fighting strategies to remain as healthy as > possible) ? > The answer is rather simple (at least to express) : we need to make > "sentences". And to make sentences requires a grammar (the > discourse > structure) and a vocabulary (to populate the discourse structure). > > Is it possible to have a discourse structure that can "host" any > terminology ? > My personal answer is 'no', but maybe I try to tell more complex > stories > than you intend, or maybe you have a more powerful technological > solution. > At large, I can ask you a question : do you think that you could > communicate using the english grammar and let people choose any > other > language's vocabulary to populate it ? > You can answer that natural language is more complex that formal > language, but I can say that the more complex the story you intend > to > tell and the closer they need to be. > > Regards, > > Philippe > > > The important thing in openEHR archetypes is the structure of > them. As > > long as there is a structure that is equal for both "Weight" and > > "Bodyweight", it shouldn't be a problem. The allowed information > model > > structures in archetypes is what really matters and the terms can > > always be bound to external terminologies to create a mutual > > understanding. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mattias Forss > > > > > > > >
