You are probably right. I think for the moment I would like to get ADL/AOM 1.5 completed (more or less) with the current assumptions, at least until we can obtain some more evidence (particularly from vendor companies with actual production implementations) and modellers whose archetypes are deployed for real, that would show that we need to change the current status quo. Call me conservative, but I don't like changing things without real world justification!
If anyone thinks they can invent better rules for node identification in the meantime, please feel free to post them. It may be that we can make ADL/AOM work in a way that accommodates different 'modes' of operation. - thomas On 30/08/2013 07:27, David Moner wrote: > > > > 2013/8/29 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com > <mailto: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). > > - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130830/3393322e/attachment-0001.html>
