Hi Pablo, Yes, of cause it is! My main point was that a statistical classification is a simpler product than a clinical ontology and it is therefore also easier to implement a statistical classification than a clinical ontology. But if your use case require a clinical ontology instead of a statistical classification, you need to accept that it is more difficult to implement a clinical ontology than a statistical classification.
Regards Mikael From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Pablo Pazos Sent: den 14 mars 2018 23:58 To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> Subject: RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again But ICD is a statistical not a clinical tool. On Mar 14, 2018 7:10 PM, "Mikael Nyström" <mikael.nyst...@liu.se<mailto:mikael.nyst...@liu.se>> wrote: Hi, Of cause it is possible to create something that is easier to use. ICD-10 is a good example of something that have similarities with SNOMED CT and is both (for some use cases) easier to implement and more widespread. But I if you want something that is based on logic, because you want to use logic functions when you use the system, it comes with the complexity of logic. And it is not that complex to implement SNOMED CT. The problem is probably that we have fewer trained people in health informatics (including in for example SNOMED CT and openEHR) that in other informatics areas. Regards Mikael From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org>] On Behalf Of Philippe Ameline Sent: den 13 mars 2018 13:32 To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> Subject: Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again Le 13/03/2018 à 12:32, GEORGE, John (NHS DIGITAL) a écrit : I am get the impression that SNOMED CT is hard to implement, and therefore wondered if we are at some kind of tipping point, like where HL7v3 was a few years ago, and some bright spark came along, and now we have FHIR that is gaining great traction in the health community due to the ease at which it can be implemented. Hi John, The tipping point will only get reached when a sufficient amount of Snomed users will state that it is uselessly hard to implement... and when someone will invent a smart way to simplify it... not there yet ;-) But I really insist on the two orthogonal issues at stake: 1) a component should ease your job and not kill your project (detect "dead horses" early), 2) a component should not keep you stuck in the wrong (ancient) reference frame. No need to say that FHIR is easier to put at work than the plain RIM, but it still keeps its community in a system where "boxes that saw the patient passing by can exchange information" when we should (due to both the chronic turn and the information society era) be dedicated to organize multidisciplinary teamwork around patients. Best, Philippe _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org> http://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