Daniel, Closed and Open world assumptions are used the world of: - Formal logic - Knowledge representation
This notion of Open and Closed world assumptions occured to. Let me explain. I happen to see a parallel/overlap between: systems that serve a well defined (Closed) community with implicit and explicit agreements and systems to deal potentially with not yet defined things in an not defined (Open) community. In a system according to the Closed World Assumption all data fields are explicitly and implicitly agreed upon. Nothing that is not defined can not be processed, just like Relational Data bases and messages. In a system according to the Open world assumption the semantics of a data field are fully defined semantically by archetypes and reference terminologies. There is (almost) no implicit meta-data. Ontological reasoners can fully exploit the data. These are the systems we want but do not have on the market. Do you have any suggestion for alternative terms? Gerard Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gfrer at luna.nl On 29 aug. 2013, at 11:12, Daniel Karlsson <daniel.karlsson at liu.se> wrote: > Gerard, Everyone, > > could you please *NOT* reuse existing terms like "open world" and > "closed world" with an already agreed specific meaning in a well-defined > context for your own purposes! > > On the topic of descriptive vs. prescriptive I believe that that is an > additional dimension in this discussion. I still want to have an answer > to the question of what to do with archetype nodes for which there are > no existing terminology correspondence. Should we ban those archetype > nodes or should we (over)inflate terminologies with imprecise content or > should we just accept that archetypes and terminology are different > artefact beasts with different properties and that we have to thread > carefully balancing terminology binding possibilities and specific use > case requirements? I have questions: What is the purpose of a Reference terminology when it is missing essential and relevant lemma's? Perhaps we need several Reference terminologies? Then the next question is how do we delineate more than one Reference Terminology? One thing I know: We need an agreed list of words we use, reflecting concepts we need, in the context of health data inside systems and between systems. We need a Reference Terminology as a kind of dictionary. How many dictionaries do we need? One per domain such as: anatomy, demographics, medicinal product, health and care services (interventions, lab-tests, etc.), structure of documents, units of measurement, family relations, kinds of media formats, etc., etc. > > /Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130829/61a3b36d/attachment-0001.html>
