Le 15/03/2018 à 20:30, Ricardo Gonçalves a écrit : > > I too want to look at the the future and picture a state of art > component and hopefully a [health] technological utopia, but a lot of > work led us to what is currently available. Are we taking that to > try/improve things and get somewhere? Are we holding back until > something more mature, more usable, more future-alike comes up? Which > path is more likely to bring us closer to the goal?
Hi Ricardo, The question of settling in a local optimum or to go find a better place has probably been the most ancient question that sapiens has been facing ;-) Should we keep working hard in this place where harvesting is so hard, or should we try to climb this mountain and see if it is not easier on the other side? My opinion is that there is a good reason not to get stuck (trying hard forever) with Snomed. As you said, thinks started with classifications, then some people came up with coding systems and later on with ontology. The ability to tell things improved step by step and led to an evolution of information structures. Meanwhile, the whole society was transformed by ambient information systems to the point that we entered the post-industrial era, and, as you know it well, the chronic turn demands for a deep reinvention of the medical domain. My opinion is that you cannot cope with such challenges using a "language" that, due to its roots as a coding system, includes "words" like "Pathological fracture of ankle due to secondary osteoporosis" (concept 704293000). Time will tell if the settlers were more wise than the explorers... and we all have to keep in mind, as you nailed it, that we may have different goals. Best, Philippe
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
