2013/8/28 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>
>
>
> Does LinkEHR actually do this? I.e. only some at-codes are found in the
> ontology? Your statement above (bolded) is right in theory (or at least
> that's the way I see it), but then the obvious question is: if I mutate the
> type (say) ENTRY to ENTRY[at0123], what does ENTRY[at0123] mean? In general
> we want to equate that with a meaning of some kind (like 'ENTRY' has a
> meaning). Remember, we could have done something like 'ENTRY[admission]' or
> 'ENTRY[bp_measurement]' but we don't do that because we want the meanings
> to be multi-lingual (one day the 'ENTRY' bit should be as well...). So we
> use term codes.
>
> So if we agree that 'mostly' we want those meanings defined, then the
> question is: which places doesn't it matter? I would say: places where it's
> obvious, like ELEMENT.value: DV_TEXT. My view has always been that we would
> avoid at-codes in locations where the meaning is obvious (principally for
> single-valued attributes, where the archetype meaning is the same as the RM
> meaning). The other reason for that is to limit the length of paths for
> Xpath processing. Unnecessary codes can double the length of some paths.
>
No, currently all atNNNN codes are also found at the ontology in LinkEHR,
even if they are empty, to be compatible with the VATDF2 check, although
we would like to avoid it :-)
In my opinion we talk of two different levels of meaning. One is the
explicit meaning, where the definition of the node is defined through a
natural text or a terminology binding and that is, of course, the needed
for a complete semantic interoperability. The other is the implicit
meaning, when you create e.g. an OBSERVATION with occurrences {1..1} you
are creating "An OBSERVATION that only happens once". That means something
(otherwise you wouldn't have defined that constraint), even if you cannot
give it a natural name or a terminology code. And if it means something, it
shall have an identifier.
>
> If we go the other way, then we are saying: at-codes are 100% mandatory
> everywhere, but definitions for them are optional. Then we need some rules
> on when it is optional and when mandatory. What rules would you propose for
> that? Remembering that a clinical modeller absolutely relies on those rules
> for understanding the archetype?
>
I don't think a clinical modeller would have to mind about these aspects.
He/she creates an archetype node (internally, a unique atNNNN code is
created). He/she optionally gives it a name or defines a terminology
binding (internally the ontology structures are created). When the
archetype is used or processed, the systems will only use the information
they have available.
--
David Moner Cano
Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME
Instituto ITACA
http://www.ibime.upv.es
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner
Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV)
Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta
Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130828/c3a581e6/attachment.html>
