Thomas, That is fully correct. Even a ?one? and ?zero? have a well defined meaning, as do their associated voltage levels in the CPU.
In our domain of eHealth it must be clear that when we speak about ?Semantic' we mean health related semantics, the clinical aspects. I am a firm believer in a separation of concerns between the various layers in the semantic stack. The RM must address the legal and ethical aspects of document structure of any thing. Archetypes/Templates deal with the eHealth/Clinical semantics inside these structures. There is nothing misleading. It is wrong to mix general legal ethical aspects, document structure aspects, with specific health specific semantic aspects. It is a wrong idea to mix these aspects. The domain specific but invariant aspects must be dealt with in standardised patterns we use to construct (clinical, administrative, management, re-use) archetypes and templates. And some parts of the semantics, as you advocate, in the RM and others in archetype patterns is wrong. That is my opinion. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gfrer at luna.nl On 16 feb. 2014, at 14:18, Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > > this is a common but misleading idea! There are semantics everywhere. Even > the type 'Integer' has some semantics. The question is what semantics should > be in the RM versus what should not be. My view is that 'domain-invariant > semantics' should be included (for whatever you say your domain is, e.g. EHR, > health data etc), and that variable semantics should go into archetypes. The > trick is to work out where that boundary actually is. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140216/3f886873/attachment-0001.html>
