Thomas, If I had to sum up the debate, I would write something like:
- pre-coordination is necessary for legacy systems that stick to coding systems and didn't make the move to more elaborated representation of information, - pre-coordination's drawback is that expressing sentences as concepts will mechanically lead to an explosion of the list of concept unless the scope/audience remains small enough so that it ends up reaching an asymptote that can be dealt with, - considering SNOMED's ambitions (worldwide, large scope), we can reasonably doubt that such asymptote exists. Philippe Le 01/04/2018 à 14:33, Thomas Beale a écrit : > > > One thing I have noticed in recent systems in Brazil I looked at is > that the codes are locally defined (e.g. SIGTAP, a Brazilian > vocabulary for procedures) and almost all pre-coordinations of the > most unscientific kind (with terms of the form 'cholecystectomy > performed at private or military clinic'). Initially, it looks like a > lost cause, but in fact SIGTAP only has (from memory) < 5000 terms, > and there are ways of dealing with it. The Read codes in the UK were > more scientific, but still contained many weird pre-coordinations (the > famous example being 'hit by falling space junk while riding a > bicycle'), but was also only O(10k) in size. > > So the 'size of the problem' is often inversely proportional to its > awfulness, when talking about legacy terminology use, and this is what > makes it possible to do something about it. > > The fact is, many old systems just couldn't express that many things. > > - thomas > > On 31/03/2018 22:24, Diego Boscá wrote: >> What I say is that legacy applications or current systems usually >> offer limited options with the knowledge available when they were >> created. These options were decided back in the day and usually fit >> with precoordinated terms. And defining this subsets helps on going >> forward >> >> El sáb., 31 mar. 2018 22:14, Philippe Ameline >> <philippe.amel...@free.fr <mailto:philippe.amel...@free.fr>> escribió: >> >> Some people (count me in) strictly ban what you call >> precoordination (that I call "aglutinating language") because >> they believe that there is a nearly infinite set of them and such >> a system is born to "explode" as the frog that wanted to mimic >> the ox. >> >> To put it differently: you cannot express all possible discourses >> as predetermined concepts. >> >> Do I interpret your answer correctly if I say that you have an >> optimist vision in the form "there is a limited number of >> clinically sound precoordinations so that SNOMED expansion will >> reach an asymptote that keep being manageable"? >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > 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
