yes, agree.
But we need more ontologies informing archetypes, classifications and 
/terminologies about other topics such as defined in the ISO Continuity of Care 
standard, …

Gerard   Freriks
+31 620347088

Kattensingel  20
2801 CA Gouda
the Netherlands

> On 1 Mar 2018, at 16:24, Thomas Beale <> wrote:
> Sorry - didn't mean to be cryptic.
> BFO = basic formal ontology - probably best mainstream reference is the book, 
> see here on Amazon 
> <>
> RO = relations ontology - an ontology of possible relationships between 
> upper-level biomedical entities, including part-of, develops-from etc. OBO 
> ref <>.
> IAO = Information Artefact Ontology. OBO ref 
> <>.
> I'm not saying that the concrete representation of reference data has to be 
> an ontology (e.g. as produced by Protege), but reference information 
> ('knowledge') is unavoidably based on an ontological viewpoint in the same 
> way that the contents of SNOMED CT are (should be). Drug data for example 
> takes the form of facts about drugs such as constituents, interactions; units 
> information is /should be based on an ontology of measurement concepts (which 
> is not very well represented in OBO right now - as far as I can determine, 
> people think it should be in IAO, but I think that is incorrect. Practically, 
> UCUM serves pretty well.)
> - thomas

openEHR-technical mailing list

Reply via email to