Bert Archetypes were conceived to support SEMANTIC INTEROPERABILITY. The 13606 is a communication standard, but of course you can also use it to build systems. OpenEHR had 13606 as it root (Thomas Beale was also involved in 13606 as (co-)author of the archetype and ADL parts of the standard) As far as I know, and EHR extract can be wrapped in an HL7 message body (a blob) and transmitted to an other system. In principle archetypes should ease the communication, since you have not define in detail all the data elements in a message, but make the message self explainable.
So it is not a new use case that should be treated differently. Jan On 29 aug. 2013, at 20:43, Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl> wrote: > 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> 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 >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-technical mailing list >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
