Hi Pablo, On 11/05/2011 14:04, pablo pazos wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > I agree that the essence of this issue is to detect "generic/reusable > patters" or "ontological components", and then derive our "information > models" from these components. > > Just two thoughts: > > 1. A marketing issue: If these patterns are directly derived from some > existent IM, then we will have the same trouble of defining one common > IM: my model is better than yours, so we'll never agree.
that's probably true. I think the right approach would be to establish an 'empty whiteboard' place to create such a model from pieces of other models, however modified, so as to be consistent. > I think we must represent and present these patterns as ontological > components, trying to avoid the copy&paste of the pattern from one o > the other IM. the problem with this approach is that it is not likely to be sufficiently expressive, even though I think you are theoretically correct. But software people like pragmatic models and formalisms, and presenting e.g. an OWL ontology is just making it harder to understand the semantics not easier. > I know that de openEHR IM is derived from an ontologial analisys of > thereality,so we can see it as a concrete ontology for healthcare > information, but it is not presented as a concrete ontology, is > presented as an IM to be implemented on software. I don't know if I > mess up this explanation, just want to tell that we must be careful in > the way we present, represent and name things if we want a global > agreement. I think there is no tool or formalism today that does exactly what we want. UML 2.x is weak on its definition of inheritance (it doesn't properly distinguish is-a inheritance from other kinds of non-substituting inheritance); OWL2 is weak on the semantics of associations and encapsulation. We await a true ontological formalism ;-) Until then I think we have to make do with diagrams, and bits of OWL and UML as they suit us. > > 2. The current openEHR IM is great for dealing with clinical record > information and micro clinical processes (Instructions, Activities, > Actions and the associated state machine), but not for the macro > processes that embrace the micro clinical processes, and for building > computerized information systems we need those processes modeled also. > For example, if a traumatized patient comes to the ER in an ambulance, > and then is derived to an ICU, we have a global process of "trauma > care", then we have macro processes like "prehospitalary care", > "emergency care", and "ICU care". In each of these macro processes we > have multiple workflows excecuted in paralel, and different types > processes but interdependent like administrative (patient > identification, human resource assignation, etc), clinical > (observations, actions, evaluation, etc), accounting (resource > ussage), and financial (healthcare costs). so, if we model patters or > ontological components, I think these must represent (in a generic > way) the macro processes, not only the micro-clinical processes. yes, these are good points, and still more work is needed to formalise these processes. I would however call this a different problem than that of the basic patterns. We at least need the patterns to simply build basic pieces of information. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110605/375de84e/attachment.html>
