Mikael Nystr?m wrote: > 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. > Hi Mikael, I was just referring to the fact that you can add term bindings after the archetype is published in CKM without the archetype requiring a new version or so as this is a compatible change. Didn't want to go into the practicality of doing this and the problems that can and will arise. But I agree that you won't always get an exact match even in a fairly comprehensive terminology such as Snomed, the question only is how severe the gaps are and how much it matters in the end. It may well be that content development and binding it to terminology need to be more in parallel rather than in sequence. If Snomed and openEHR collobarate, I believe both sides can learn here and improve archetypes as well as Snomed.
Cheers Sebastian
