hi Philippe

No one who's actually tried to use Snomed CT could think that in it's
current form it's the answer to everything.
But anyone who's tried to work on real terminologies must also be aware of
just how much work is involved in these things.

So there's very much a glass half full/empty thing here. I understand not
being thrilled with Snomed CT as a choice, but as the french government,
for instance, actually confronted how much more it will cost to do
something else?

There's more than one kind of club to have that wastes money....

I've had a quick look at Meriterm... like all good rdf, it's not easily
penetrable. But it looks like the authors are not informed about Cimino's
desiderata... which brings us back to the wasting money thing...

Grahame



On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 8:19 PM, Philippe Ameline <philippe.amel...@free.fr>
wrote:

> Pablo, I wish you sincerely all the best.
>
> IMHO, the question is not really to enroll but to deliver... and
> considering the tremendous amount of money that was invested in HL7 and
> Snomed (both to elaborate and try to implement) and the actual societal
> return, there is such a discrepancy that the hypothesis that, due to
> missing the "information society" turn, health systems are entering
> terrible crisis times is to be considered seriously.
>
> In current "information society", you have two options when considering
> "health information systems":
> 1) You dedicate yourself to "medical information systems" instead, and can
> freely build for (inter-connected) silos,
> 2) You consider "health" in its genuine meaning and you have to realize
> that it is a complex domain fully opened to all other societal issues...
> hence should ban components that are endemic to medicine.
>
> Maybe (and I really mean it for Latin America), it should be high time to
> leapfrog, not to join the "dollars wasting club" ;-)
>
> Philippe
>
> Le 12/03/2018 à 18:17, Pablo Pazos a écrit :
>
> In Latin America is all the contrary, more countries are becoming SNOMED
> members and adopting SNOMED at the govt level.
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Philippe Ameline <
> philippe.amel...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> Le 12/03/2018 à 01:38, Pablo Pazos a écrit :
>>
>> > IMO we should focus on SNOMED.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There is currently some kind of interesting momentum against Snomed.
>>
>> It can come from governments that refuse to pay for it (current mood in
>> France), of from practitioners who, after having been asked by their gov
>> to "sort out their Snomed subset" came to the conclusion that it doesn't
>> exist.
>>
>> <Troll>Some also predict that the most certain result of keeping up
>> trying to build systems using such shitty fully endemic components is to
>> have medical doctors disappear from missing the "information society"
>> turn.</Troll>
>>
>> Have some of you been aware of the Meriterm (European) project?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Philippe
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_
>> lists.openehr.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
> pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com
> +598 99 043 145 <+598%2099%20043%20145>
> skype: cabolabs
> <http://cabolabs.com/>
> http://www.cabolabs.com
> https://cloudehrserver.com
> Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing 
> listopenEHR-technical@lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-
> technical_lists.openehr.org
>



-- 
-----
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grah...@healthintersections.com.au
/ +61 411 867 065
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Reply via email to