I wonder if the purpose of an archetype is not getting unclear i this discussion? Aren't we talking about templates?
I think, the purpose of an archetype is to give context to the data-nodes. They are not meant to be read by machine without human interfering. In the case, when machines deal with isolated data-items, every node should have a stand alone, unambiguous meaning. I think the purpose of archetypes is to make software run, and to use them in the inside house, for a well known software purpose. The purpose is to serve humans, not machines If you want to use data for data exchange, like messaging, or semantic web, you cannot use archetypes in the way they work now. You have to define messages, like Nictiz did, in some XML-format, or you have to define specific data-format to send to the semantic web, for example for epidemiology-detection or other big-data-purposes. You can use templates to create those data-constructs/formats. It seems to me very inefficient to search for a data-notation which can serve every purpose. Bert On 08/29/2013 08:21 PM, Talmon (CRISP) wrote: > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > 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/b79996b7/attachment-0001.html>
