On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:27 AM, Karsten Hilbert <karsten.hilb...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 10:07:24AM +0100, David Moner wrote: > > > You are talking about a future reuse or validation of the data. But what > it > > was discused here is how to define the reference ranges for any data to > > take an action at the moment of data registry. And, as Gerard said, those > > references must be stored for future interpretation of the data. Thus, > I'm > > of the opinion that ideally this should be stored together with the > > archetype/templates as it is part of the domain knowledge at that moment. > > The ranges will be different across labs and across types of > measurement due to "precision available", "reagants used", > "technology applied", and a variety of other ugly real-world > factors. Even for the very same LOINC from the very same lab. > > I don't think this knowledge should (or can) live in the > archetype but rather be stored with the data and/or the > interpretation of the data. > On one hand - I agree with you whole-heartedly. On the other, it seems as if you are saying that ultimately the real world is so complex (and has so many options) that reducing it all to a normalized/modeled/semantic basis is a fool's errand? Too many ugly "real-world factors" to ever be able to model in detail? (This may be true - but I am simply asking if that is what you are intending to declare.)
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
