2013/8/29 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > > well the idea here has always been, and remains justified today: > > - an archetype-local definition in words for the meaning of the node > is needed, because this says _exactly_ what the designers intended > - those meanings are given by domain experts, and (with some review, > QA process) will be as good as any linguistic definition in any ontology or > terminology (probably better, because they are specific to the case at > hand) > - if we are lucky enough to find some code that matches, or > approximately describes the same thing in an ontology and/or SNOMED CT / > LOINC etc, then we can add those bindings > > If we were only allowed to define nodes for which matching codes can be > found in OBO, SNOMED or other supposedly reliable places, then we would > have no chance of building anything but the most meagre archetypes, and no > ability to build semantically enabled health information systems. > > I don't know of any facts that would contradict this long-standing > position today... > > I'm not contradicting those positions, which I agree, I'm just saying that this is a very subjective topic, dependant on the context of use, the availability of some resources (e.g terminological codes) and many other factors. So, we can all do our best but it will be very difficult to have rules that guide which nodes of the archetype have to be identified just based on a structural matter (the rules you asked for).
-- 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/20130830/e72e674d/attachment-0001.html>
