Gerard's description of what he calls the Open World is precisely the problem of archetype nodes with no terminological bindings. It is possible toreason with them, in prinicpe even not for humans.
WhenI receive data with a node identifier and I can look up in the archetype that the label attached to that node in the archetype definition is systolic, I still don't know whether or not is a systolic bloodpressure, even when the archetype is about bloodpressure. Only with a validated terminological link, we know the semantics of the node. The designers of the archetype could equally well labelled the node goofey. With the proper terminological binding we know that that goofey node is the systolic blood pressure. The only way out of this is to collect all those nodes that do not have a terminological binding and provide in a freely accessible document what the meaning of each node label is. Jan Talmon Sent from my iPad On 29 aug. 2013, at 15:48, "Gerard Freriks" <gfrer at luna.nl<mailto:gfrer at luna.nl>> wrote: 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<mailto:gfrer at luna.nl> On 29 aug. 2013, at 11:12, Daniel Karlsson <daniel.karlsson at liu.se<mailto: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 _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130829/01aabc1f/attachment-0001.html>
