Hi Daniel, Hugh et al. A couple of weeks ago I started a section on the wiki to collect use cases for terminology mappings from archetypes:
http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/healthmod/Archetypes+and+Terminology#ArchetypesandTerminology-Usecasesforterminologyreferencesinarchetypes IMHO this is a very important topic and it would be good if the people following this thread could use it to share their ideas in the wiki. Cheers, Thilo On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Daniel Karlsson <daniel.karlsson at imt.liu.se> wrote: > Hugh, > > >> The argument comes when you say that every data point in an archetype >> needs to be coded and here there are arguments both ways. I would say >> that it is unnecessary to code every data point. There is little >> benefit for instance in coding sitting, lying, standing, reclining n a >> blood pressure archetype. The archetype contrains the value of >> position to these four values. The values are in context and their >> meaning is clear to anyone using this archetype. Translation is much >> easier as the archetype gives an absolute context for the meaning of >> the term. Coding these terms in SNOMED would be so that you can query >> your health record for every "standing" item? Its pretty unlikely >> that this would be a useful requirement. Coding everything s going to >> be a very slow and enormously expensive process to get right. It >> makes translation of archetypes much more difficult, especially for >> those many countries that don't (yet) have a SNOMED translation. >> Building archetypes is proving to be a very rapid and useful process. > > I think that there can be more reasons for binding archetype nodes to > external terminologies apart from information re-use requirements in the > "query for everything standing" example, e.g. to be able to express that > "standing" in one archetype has the same meaning as "standing" in > another archetype. > > Also, I didn't realise that I said that everything necessarily should be > coded. Referring to David Markwell's report, he states (more or less) > that things in the "grey zone" should be represented redundantly but he > also states that terminology binding requirements should be driven by > information re-use requirements. I agree with him on both points. > > /Daniel > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
