Hi Thomas, I am not sure that the particular difficulties highlighted in this piece are really the sole province of HL7. As I read the original discussions and Barry Smith's analysis, there are 2 separate issues
1) The overall difficulties of harmonising value sets for particular use cases (HITSP in this example). Whilst I think we can argue that the archetype and maximal dataset approach make this task much easier, nevertheless the organisational and legacy representation issues mentioned are identical for our modelling work. 2) Barry Smith takes issue with the ontological definition of 'marital status'. Whilst his logic may be impeccable, I think this is an unfortunate example to pick apart. I am not sure if his preferred higher-level marital status 'married/not married' is of any real practical clinical or administrative value. Does he mean legally married or effectively married or religiously married? By whose rules? I think this is taking ontological purity into an unsustainable and fruitless level of detail. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax? +44(0)1536 414994 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical analyst,?Ocean Informatics openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL BCS Primary Health Care SG Group www.phcsg.org On 25 November 2010 10:02, Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > > Some of the things I mentioned in the last post on good modelling > practice, and the problems in HL7 due to not using them are mentioned > here in by Bill Hogan MD, who is Director of Medical Vocabulary/Ontology > Services, Pittsburgh Medical Centre. See > http://hl7-watch.blogspot.com/2010/11/demographics-hl7-vs-reality-part-1.html > > - thomas beale > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
