I understand now, Daniel, thanks for explaining.
Have a nice day.
Bert
On 29-04-16 17:55, Daniel Karlsson wrote:
Hi Bert,
comments below!
On 2016-04-29 17:04, Bert Verhees wrote:
Hi Daniel, thanks, I posted the idea also to some Dutch groups, one
argument was that there is no workflow in SNOMED.
It is not a perfect solution.
Therefore I am glad you mention the low hanging fruit, and maybe it
is more then "some", maybe it is a lot.
So let us concentrate on that, and see where we would be able to come.
Yes, let's see. I'm still a skeptic though ;)
* the use cases are not the same - ontologies represent universal
truths about the world, archetypes represent record keeping
requirements
I understand your argument, but is that universal true? aren't there
any structures usable for recording in SNOMED. I am not a clinician.
So, I always have the wrong examples.
I checked "fever" in the SNOMED browser.
There are many subtypes, Malarial fever, Hay fever, Q fever, etc....
Yes, the terminology may be used to populate value sets for coded
elements. SNOMED CT will additionally tell you that fever has some
connection to body temperature. This is needed in SNOMED CT to
formally define the SNOMED CT concepts, but won't help anyone building
an archetype for patients with fever (perhaps not the best of
examples). It's universally true definitional knowledge, and thus
typically not that exciting to record.
But there is also the primitive attribute Body Temperature
(observable entity) which can contain to a value. So that can be used
for recording, can't it?
The way it would be used would be to bind it to an archetype node.
Still, while SNOMED CT can well be used for terminology binding, using
the structure of SNOMED CT, the SNOMED CT concept model, is a
different matter. The SNOMED CT concept model might tell you that a
Finding has a Finding site which is a kind of Anatomical or acquired
body structure. This might have some relation to the Body site in the
openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem_diagnosis.v1 archetype. Of the 14
attributes of that archetype though only a few has any such
correspondence to the SNOMED CT concept model. Of the 15 allowed
attributes for Findings only a few corresponds to archetype elements.
Then, there might be somethings to be done (the low-hanging fruit),
like if the Body site (not Structured body site!) also has a SNOMED CT
code you might bridge between a SNOMED CT concept with a Finding site
and an archetype instance with a Body site. However, I assume the
archetype Body site would often be used when there isn't a simple site
which can be given a single code.
* ontologies and archetypes have different "reasoning" requirements
and thus different representation languages, algorithms etc. (the
ontology-information model separation is a divide-and-conquer approach)
There are a lot of similarities, supertypes, subtypes, attributes, I
haven't found until now a structure which does not fit in an archetype.
I think, I must be missing something.
True, but also dissimilarities: open vs. closed world, unique name
assumption vs. not, untyped vs. typed, different sets of operators, etc.
* for ontologies to compute meaningfully, a larger degree of
consistency is needed, archetypes may be (and are being) developed
and used with such a need
I am not sure I understand what you want to express here. Can you
explain it, maybe with an example.
Sure, I've been working on creating some templates for an assisted
living/IoT kind-of project and the archetypes I used have a few
different patterns for representing measurement values, e.g. simple
ones like openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.body_temperature.v1 where the kind
of observation is in the element name and more complex ones like
openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.lab_test.v1 where you have to specify the kind
of observation with a specific element (at0005::Test name). For
archetypes this is generally no problem, if you know which archetype
is used, you know how to query. This "lack of consistency" also allows
the archetypes to be tailored to specific needs. For an ontology, if
you were to have different patterns you would end up with different
hierarchies and you would get false negative subsumption test results.
Cheers,
Daniel
Thanks
Bert
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
--
Daniel Karlsson, PhD, sr lecturer
Department of Biomedical Engineering/Health informatics
Linköping university
SE-58185 Linköping
Sweden
Ph. +46 708350109, Skype: imt_danka, Hangout:[email protected]
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
