On 26-01-18 10:00, Thomas Beale wrote:
The thing I am not a fan of is that units themselves become part of
terminology. This is a SNOMED direction but I think a wrong one. The
reason is that the ontology of units isn't the same as the ontology of
findings, medications and so on. In fact they all have different
ontologies, and trying to jam them all into SNOMED CT under a single
meta- model is problematic at best.
But OpenEhr is a registering system, so if archetypes will be written to
define datasets which use a SNOMED-term, then OpenEhr supports that,
because OpenEhr supports archetypes.
You cannot negate termbindings on AOM/ADL-level in expressing (for
example), we do not accept SNOMED (only UCUM) at this point, it is the
archetype-designer who decides that. I think that is one of the best
features of OpenEhr, the semantic standards are by the user to define.
OpenEhr facilitates. There is the success factor of OpenEhr.
The solution Diego described yesterday works perfect for many point of
views and fits in the OpenEhr paradigms.
If one wants an UCUM term in the DvQuantity and another wants a SNOMED
term, it is both legal and possible.
What is preferable, that is not to us to decide while thinking about
OpenEhr.
Best regards
Bert
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
