On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 08:52 +0930, Sam Heard wrote: > We have learned a lot over the past few years - but I am a practicing > clinician and the following should be read with that in mind!
While a lot has been learned. The universe of people actually developing archetypes is rather small when compared to healthcare professionals globally. I believe that Tom will concur that those structures were all included because they make sense from an engineering stand-point. At this point in the evolution, I do not believe that we even know all that we don't know about building knowledge structures. When Albert Einstein said; "Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler." he likely stressed the last phrase. As far as the comment about the ENTRY sub-classes intruding on the ontological space. They do not intrude, that is a point of intersection where one represents knowledge and the other gives it structure. Both are a requirement for interoperability. My 2 cents. --Tim -- *************************************************************** Timothy Cook, MSc Project Lead - Multi-Level Healthcare Information Modeling http://www.mlhim.org LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook Skype ID == timothy.cook Academic.Edu Profile: http://uff.academia.edu/TimothyCook You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101111/600ba169/attachment.asc>
