Hi Charlie, I agree. This topic is not about HL7 and/or EN13606. It is about the logical, semantic and technical aspects of semantic interoperability.
I like to think about problems using simple, time proven, solutions and ways to deal with complexity. One magic solution for everything is impossible. We humans use the dictionary to describe the meaning of words. Using a syntax we produce sentences. With common knowledge in our heads we know what is relevant and makes sense. We express what we need to express in a context. The dictionary will not tell us what to document. We need a way to capture what we want to express. We all use documentation patterns to express things in a common way. Mental exercise: - Documentation Pattern: " Once upon a time there was a Princess" We humans know that it is the documentation pattern for a fairy tale. Will the ontology be able to 'know' this? Probably not. It will assume: there was a princes, there was a time, there was a place. I see the need for six orthogonal levels (models). 1- A structure describing knowledge = the Ontology 2- Words to express knowledge = Coding system 3- Something else 4- A structure to assemble words into sentences 5- A structure to assemble sentences in documents 6- A structure to store meta-information for archiving purposes, versioning, etc, etc. Without 3 we are able to produce correct sentences and collect them in documents. This does not guarantee that we produce relevant sentences in a particular context. It does not guarantee that sentences produced make sense; they can be non-sensical. Even when they are correct the documentation pattern causes the interpretation to change completely. Using 1 we (and IT-systems) will find out that it is nonsense and not relevant in a context. Therefor we need a structure so users can express want they want to express. This level three are Archetypes/Templates. Level 3 is the Documentation Pattern where context, processes, humans interact with systems and use all the other layers to document, archive, exchange and re-use heir data and information. At level 3 we must know how technically we can refer to codes from coding systems. I know that we have not a universal way to refer to codes and coding systems. Do we have a worldwide agreement how we refer to a coding system? Do we have a worldwide agreement how we refer to a specific code from a coding system? Do we have a worldwide agreement how we refer to a defined subset of codes from a coding system? How do we deal with the variable structure of each code? Do we have a worldwide agreement how to process the presentation labels and descriptions? Do we have a worldwide agreement how to express inclusion and exclusion criteria (in the case of classifications for example)? Do we have a worldwide agreement how we deal with the language in which code and coding system related items are expressed? Do all standards, systems, specify all this in universal way? Gerard -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, MD Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252544896 M: +31 620347088 E: gfrer at luna.nl Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 On Apr 23, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Charlie McCay wrote: > I would agree that there are limits to the utility of such mappings > - indeed it is to explore such limits that we are engaged in this > thread. > This is a serious area, and openehr, 13606, and hl7 all have > mistakes and successes, (and differences and similarities). We have > differing perspectives on those, but let's try to put that to one > side and address common themes in this thread. > I agree that there is a difference between language and ontology. I > am less convinced that to serve clinical system interoperability the > distinction can be maintained absolutely. At one level there is the > blurred boundary between terminology and structure, and at another > there is the safe automated reuse of entries/clinical statements - > something that happens and for which we need a better understanding, > with entries being treated as semantically independent. I beleive > that ontologists have much to contribute to this area. > I share with Seref a desire to understand why the research work is > not getting into practice. If it is not addressing the practical > questions then I move on to ask what work is. > > My interest is in asserting the relationships between standards > relevant to interoperability. I beleive that there is value in > seeing what is stopping this happening, and whether the cost of > addressing some or all of those hurdles would be justified > > All the best > > Charlie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090423/5ede39a5/attachment.html>
