On 17/02/2014 17:37, Bert Verhees wrote: > Thomas Beale schreef op 17-2-2014 14:59: >> >> >> Can you say how this could happen? If there is doubt, just choose the >> one that seems to fit, and use it. I think the only question is: for >> a given clinical content model, is there no RM option that fits at >> all? Are there cases like this? > > It is more the approach which is unnecessary limited by the semantic > design, it can block a new approach, and it makes paths too much > depending on the semantic pre-classification enforced by the RM. > It could be possible to define afterwards if something is an > Evaluation or an Observation. There are gray area's between the two, > in cases of interpreted Observations, and that is no problem. The > problem is only that now one has to decide at storage-time what it is, > while it could also be afterwards on reading time. One could also > change opinion. > > And now, there are four nouns to choose from, maybe a new approach > wants three or five. It is not possible in this RM. This can block > innovation. >
Bert, I don't really understand this. The clinical modellers will decide on Observation or Evaluation, and build their archetypes and templates. The paths will come from the archetypes, whatever their choices were. There might be occasionally some ambiguity for clinical modellers, but once they decide on their model, there's no ambiguity. What innovation are you seeking that is being blocked? I'm not saying the openEHR RM couldn't be more flexible - but I don't understand the problem you refer to here. - thomas
