Sebastian Garde wrote:
Hi,
>> 2) Another question is in relation to templates. If a significant
>> number of term bindings happen at the template rather than Archetype
>> level, are term bindings in Archetypes optional and open to further
>> constraint even after an archetype is released in CKM?
> Term bindings can certainly added after the content of an archetype
> is published in CKM - no problem and exactly what we intend to do.
> Where possible, simple term bindings should be at archetype level,
> but terminology subsets you would probably rather expect on template
> level.
> Ian or Thomas may want to add (or contradict me ;-) )
I should probably add that there exist different views in the openEHR
community about how easy it is to add terminology bindings to already
modelled archetypes.
I belong to a group that, except for openEHR related research, also do
research about terminology systems and terminology systems mapping. During
mapping from one terminology system to another terminology system is it
quite common to be unable to map properly, because the two terminology
systems have divided the domain in different ways. This problem appears even
when mapping to SNOMED?CT, which have a broad coverage and a concept model
allowing a broad set of relationships. My view is that the same problem will
appear when finalized archetypes are bound to existing terminology systems.
Greetings,
Mikael
