Yes. The simple rules that solve the Boundary Problem need some exceptions. - anatomical structure - possibly some aspects of devices
To investigate it properly is a possibility. The problem I see is the How question. For me there is only one solution and that is by analysing the problem and thinking about it. Ingredients that we could take in consideration are notions like: - Models in the Interoperability Stack must be autonomous and orthogonal - The Models we need in the Stack - Closed world assumption of Archetypes versus Open world assumption of the ontology behind SNOMED - Requirements for data exposed to users via statistics, screens, forms, and documents - Requirements for data stored, retrieved from databases - Requirements for data to be interpreted by clinical reasoners - Modelling methods Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 24 Mar 2018, at 08:41, Heather Leslie > <heather.les...@atomicainformatics.com> wrote: > > Totally agreed, Silje. I think preordination for anatomical location is > invaluable, but it’s the only use case that I have identified as one we > absolutely can’t do without. > > But I would love the opportunity to really investigate this properly, and > with others who understand SNOMED better than I. That will help with the > boundary issue/semantically grey area. > > I’d prefer that we could use and reuse simpler, really high quality value > sets from in multiple archetypes for different contexts eg a list of > diagnoses in the Problem/diagnosis archetype as well as the Family History > archetype. The archetype context is invaluable here. And the terminology > community focussing on high value terms that would provide great impact. > > Regards > > Heather >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
