On 10/03/2010 22:16, Mikael Nystr?m wrote: > > 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. >
it will certainly appear. The question is: for those archetype nodes that it is useful to bind to terminology (likely to be 10% or less), how close is the match? For example, in labs, it should be nearly spot on. For anatomy, it should be pretty close. For diseases, the disease concept in an archetype will assume that it is coded in the first place by terminology, so the only problem there is mapping problems from ICD to SCT etc. I think we need to look at the actual size of the concrete problem, not its theoretical worst case. - thomas * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100310/85cf7b11/attachment.html>
