On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:27 AM, Karsten Hilbert <karsten.hilb...@gmx.net>

> 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

Reply via email to