Dear Carol,
I agree that we need to be able to support both approaches and my proposal
is formed to support both approaches.
However, I do not agree that the national translation approach will take
forever in all countries. For example it would not surprise me if Swedish
Association of Local Authorities and Regions (Sveriges Kommuner och
Landsting) or Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen)
sooner than later make official Swedish translations of essential
archetypes.
Regards,
Mikael
_____
From: [email protected]
[mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Dra Carola
Hullin Lucay Cossio
Sent: den 23 juni 2009 21:58
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: RE: Improving Translation_details and other_contributors ?
Importance: High
Dear All,
I do agree with a more national or collective approach, however, these
initiatives take longer to adopt among the right people due to the lack of
understanding from authorities at that level about clinical concepts. They
see clinical models as part of a simple health business or another workflow
within healthcare.
Consequently, for this type of work and the time frame required for
archetypes, both approaches are acceptable but they must have the both
options, since the later ( National or accreditation approach) may take for
ever. Politicians and government authorities may not see this as a priority
for information systems design or development.
Sincerely, Carol
Dr Hullin
Senior Business Analysts
HeatlhSmart Initiative
Office of Information Systems
Department of Human Services
Victoria Australia
_____
From: [email protected]
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
Subject: RE: Improving Translation_details and other_contributors ?
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:39:16 +0200
Dear Sebastian,
Translations of medical (health) archetypes have parts in common with
translations of medical (health) terminology systems.
One example of translation projects of medical terminology systems is the
Swedish SNOMED CT translation project. The project is approximately halfway
of the translation of all active descriptions of the type ?preferred term?
from English to Swedish. The number of descriptions the project has to
translate is around 300,000.
In this project is normally each description translated by one translator.
The translation is then first inspected by one other translator and then
inspected by a translation editorial office. The translation is then
verified by relevant health care personnel.
As far as I know will the translated descriptions be marked as part of the
Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare?s official translation of
SNOMED CT. However, the names of the people involved in the translation and
which organisations they belong to will only be known inside the translation
project. It seems also to be the same case for other translations of
terminology system into Swedish.
I therefore think that in some cases are the accreditation association much
more important than the name and demographic information about the
translators.
I therefore think that a more proper model is
accreditation : String
0..1
--
Accreditation of translator, usually a national translator?s association id
translation_contributors :
<http://www.openehr.org/uml/release-1.0.1/Browsable/_9_0_76d0249_11084700091
70_630396_833Report.html> Hash<String,String,String>
0..1
--
Role, name and other demographic details for contributors in the translation
process
Regards,
Mikael
_____
From: [email protected]
[mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Garde
Sent: den 23 juni 2009 10:25
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: Improving Translation_details and other_contributors ?
Dear all,
Ian, Heather and I have raised an issue at
http://www.openehr.org/issues/browse/SPECPR-24 for improving the
Translation_details and other_contributors.
What seems to be current practice is that a translation will be done by more
than one person and documenting this is not really supported by the model:
TRANSLATION_DETAILS
accreditation : String
<http://www.openehr.org/uml/release-1.0.1/Browsable/_9_0_76d0249_11095841383
49_959314_1900Report.html> 1 -- Accreditation of
translator, usually a national translator?s association id
author : Hash
<http://www.openehr.org/uml/release-1.0.1/Browsable/_9_0_76d0249_11084700091
70_630396_833Report.html> <String,String> 1 --
Translator name and other demographic details
Only one translator is available.
The easiest change would be to make author repeatable, but accreditation
(which seems to be somewhat detached from the author anyway) would need to
be changed then as well - is accreditation that important that it couldn't
be captured as part of the author Hash or what is the reason for having it
separate?
The other problem we have is with other_contributors not sticking to the
same format (i.e. we only have a list of contributors without more formal
metadata):
RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION
original_author : Hash
<http://www.openehr.org/uml/release-1.0.1/Browsable/_9_0_76d0249_11084700091
70_630396_833Report.html> <String,String> 1 --
Original author of this resource, with all relevant details, including
organisation.
other_contributors : List
<http://www.openehr.org/uml/release-1.0.1/Browsable/_9_0_76d0249_11084700090
80_492027_712Report.html> <String> 0..1 -- Other
contributors to the resource, probably listed in ?name ? form.
I think I understand why it is modelled as it is, but why not allow
other_contributors to be 0..* Hash
<http://www.openehr.org/uml/release-1.0.1/Browsable/_9_0_76d0249_11084700091
70_630396_833Report.html> <String,String> ?
Maybe, we need to look into formalising what an author/translator is a bit
more in the model?
Are there any suggestions for a better model of this?
Or something from DCM or CDA or others on which we could base such a model
to be compatible with?
Regards
Sebastian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090624/bc636f41/attachment.html>
