On 09/11/2010 02:25, Andrew McIntyre wrote: > Hello Hugh, > > I don't have an objection to openEHR as such, but I think there is > significant semantics hardwired into the model and that hardwiring > makes openEHR archetypes difficult to use in other models, so I prefer > a simpler, more generic reference model. > > In reality the "Observation" status of an entry should have a > terminological definition rather than an explicit attribute of the > model and by declaring the eg "TABLE" cluster you are actually > removing the knowledge from the terminology and moving it to the > model. This means the archetype does not have the information. To > function as a DCM the archetype should have that knowledge embedded in > it so that it can be represented in a specific way in another model. > You could declare a cluster that is marked, by terminology binding as > a table structure and that would allow any model to represent it using > its own table convention. > > Its partially a question of drawing the line between the terminology > and the model, and openEHR extends a lot further into the terminology > realm than eg EN-13606. * * Not the terminology realm, the ontology realm. The combination of any reference model, content constraining models, and terminology constitute a set of ontological commitments. openEHR chose to make the commitment for 'Observation' in the RM because it needs structure, and terminology doesn't provide that. No-one on this discussion list (or indeed any other) has yet managed to show how it is easier to model typical content like OGTT, Apgar, and time-series vital signs, with no structure to represent timing, events, or patient state. Just putting a code on a lump of data calling it 'observation' doesn't help the software know what it is looking at.
- thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101109/c67ca24c/attachment.html>
