Philippe, Can I understand that you file-guide are patterns that fit archetypes so Healthcare Providers can compose whatever they want. The file-guides insertions are context driven. The system of file-guides acts like an Ontology for clinical/administrative content. Archetypes define how things are presented in a system-interface.
Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl > On 05 Apr 2018, at 14:50, Philippe Ameline <philippe.amel...@free.fr> wrote: > > Le 05/04/2018 à 12:16, Thomas Beale a écrit : > >> On 02/04/2018 18:38, Philippe Ameline wrote: >>> >>> Actually, I don't think that I use grammar in an unusual way. If I do it >>> technically, lets assume for the sake of the discussion that I am really >>> talking about a grammar, ie a set of rules that allows you to interpret an >>> arrangement of concepts as a discourse. Typically, a dependency grammar is >>> not just a tree representation, but a tree representation where you take as >>> a rule that the sons of an element qualify this element. Since every >>> natural language sentence can be represented as a dependency grammar tree >>> and vice versa, it is possible to assert that a dependency grammar is a >>> sufficient grammar. >> >> Right - but the normal sense of 'grammar' is something that controls / >> validates sentences made up of words so at least they have acceptable >> structural forms, even if they say semantically nonsensical things. The fils >> guides 'grammar' is supplying both levels - correct form (by implication, >> due to ordering of tree elements as you pass through them) and valid >> semantics (due to the content of the tree elements, thus preventing 'colon >> of stenosis' but allowing the reverse). > > Let's imagine that there is no fils guide. > > A "patient record" is a graph of trees (means trees which nodes can be > interconnected by typed traits, either to connect the description tree that > implements a given document description tree, or to follow a given issue over > time, etc). > > If you assume that this trees are organized as a dependency grammar and their > nodes are filled using an ontology, you don't need anything else to read it, > feed smart agents, etc. It is a story told using a structured language (ie a > grammar and an ontology). > > Of course, as you mentioned, it is possible that it contains "wrong entries" > like "colon located at stenosis". > > In the wild, it can be achieved by providing practitioners with just an > interface where they can freely express themselves by building trees (this is > the usual interface for encounter notes since it is fully non deterministic). > Now, for many good reasons, we could want to guide the way (some/most) trees > are elaborated (to ease and speed up the process, to make certain that the > information we want to process will be "well put", etc). > In deterministic areas, we can use archetypes. In semi-deterministic areas, > we can use fils guides (a flexible way to guess and propose the next "sons" > depending on current path). > > In my mind, fils guides and archetype are of different kind: an archetype is > a flexible information schema and nodes that were "build using this mold" > keep a link to it ; on the contrary, a fil guide is nothing more than a UI > helper that makes a one step deep proposal (since, when validating a proposed > son, you now are on a different path (previous one + validated node) and the > system will try to find a fil guide for this path). Since the process is > fully dynamic and local to the user (depending on the set of fil guides he > uses) the nodes don't have to remember what fil guide they originate from. > > To sum it up, you can have a journey walking in well known areas (archetypes) > and finding your way in the wild (tree filling interface). When in the wild, > you can sometimes be presented with a "step wide carpet" (Fil guide) that > helps you walk more comfortably (this process being iterative, you can > "follow the carpet as it unfolds", but can also head on in another direction). > >> well maybe 'structural terminology' is a bad term; what I am really talking >> about is models of possible content (possible utterances). > > I was mainly talking about the extra structural elements such as "Entry", etc. > > Besides, if "models of possible content" are very important inside the > deterministic area, it would be pretty limited to have the only alternative > "model of free text". If only because, if you provide users with a structured > language, you will also be able to detect that they enter an area where you > can present them with a model. When I wrote that a fil guide only makes a > "one step ahead" proposal, I forgot to mention that it can also trigger an > archetype (hey, since you are mentioning blood pressure, why not simply fill > this form?). > >> >> yes, there is no doubt that the way you engineered fils guides achieves >> this very well, and we have things to learn in terms of bridging the gap >> between linguistic expression and structural expression - for now, openEHR >> has no 'system' to do the former, it is just done ad hoc by those who want >> it. > > Fils guides are fit in a semi-deterministic environment and only when there > is a reference ontology available (because it compares user's current path > with semantically similar expert designed paths). I really hope we can > cooperate in this direction. > > Philippe
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
