It is Obvious: - We need to take the next step in Semantic Interoperability: Semantic interpretability. - And think about what is missing, so far - How to use codes from Terminologies and Classifications - How to deal with the full Context/Epistemology - How to deal with modifiers for presence/absence, certainty and other state info - What other models we need to deal with clinical, administration, and collaboration, processes
In order to have systems that allow the full, safe, interpretation by humans, services, reasoners now and in the future. Systems with the minimal amount of implicit information needed to interpret safely and fully. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 [email protected] Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 3 Apr 2018, at 09:35, A Verhees <[email protected]> wrote: > > > GF :"There are NO agreed standardised archetypes/patterns we all use to > define the meta-data in order to document the full eppistemology > so data can be interpreted fully and safely. " > > > So what do you suggest as a solution? > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Gerard Freriks >> +31 620347088 >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> Kattensingel 20 >> 2801 CA Gouda >> the Netherlands > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org>_______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
