Thomas Beale wrote:
> 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.
I agree that we have to wait and see how much problems we will get. That was
also my reason to reply to Sebastian's e-mail which told that there is no
problem to add terminology bindings after the archetypes are finalized.
However, I didn't refer to "theoretical worst case". I referred to actual
problems that have appeared for us during both our research work and in our
national SNOMED?CT project in Sweden.
Greetings,
Mikael
