2013/8/28 Gerard Freriks <gfrer at luna.nl> > David, > > Can I summarise it for my understanding as: > - ATxxxx codes are pointers to an 'ontology'. > - ATxxxx codes can be considered symbols that represent a particular > concept > - The 'ontology' provides a name that will be used to display the name of > a node (concept) in an archetype. > > I will stop at this point because I think it is the kernel of the discussion. Which should be the idea? - The ontology "must" provide a name or meaning for each atNNNN node in an archetype? This is how thing are supposed to work in current specifications - The ontology "can" provide a name or meaning for each atNNNN node in an archetype? This is how we think it should be, the ontology provides a semantic description only when it is needed or it is possible.
And what is providing a meaning or semantic description? - A terminology binding? Of course, we will rely on terminologies and ontologies for a complete semantic interoperability. - A natural language description? Well, here is where no automatic rules can exist to check if a description such as "Systolic blood pressure" or "This is a PQ type node" or "The sky is blue" or " " are correct or have a sense, only a human validation check can work here. -- 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/20130829/e8f03d7d/attachment.html>
