Hi! Interesting discussion. I'm hope we can avoid multiple inheritance in archetype specialisation. It will be interesting to see how far one can get just using single inheritance and inclusion (clusters etc).
On 10/17/07, Koray Atalag <atalagk at yahoo.com> wrote: >There are now two alternative archetypes, one designed for NHS by Ocean which > is already a specialization of general histology archetype and the other > archetype > I am currently modeling, Bethesda System 2001. I have not experimented yet if > my archetype can be redesigned as a specialization of NHS archetype (PAP) > or be a an alternative archetype for the same purpose possibly for use at a > different > setting. In the case of having two separate alternative archetypes, I thought > of > having a further specialized archetype which conforms to both parents. I think > this is possible and useful. What is different and what is in common in the two 'smear' archetype approaches (Bethesda v.s. NHS)? Sorry if this is a stupid question coming from a non-clinician. Does the reasoning in the paper... http://www.openehr.org/publications/archetypes/templates_and_archetypes_heard_et_al.pdf ...regarding organisational vs ontological models apply to this or are the differences of another nature? Can one share important sub-parts without sharing view on process and structure. If so, will the information entered using the two different archetypes be computable in a similar way for e.g. decision support systems. Perhaps the best will be to agree on one archetype in this case if possible, but I assume similar cases will surface again. From a technical perspective it is interesting to discuss how far one can get in reaching clinical consensus in 'ontological' sub parts. Splitting things up in too many small 'consensus pieces' without sharing encompassing structure is also likely to have negative impact on semantic interoperability. Best regards, Erik Sundvall erisu at imt.liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-227579
