Andrew,
We are talking about two different types of thing. You describe a simple
data model used for data collection, while the big debate is about how to
provide unambiguous identifiers for attribute values such as diagnoses,
surgical operations and medication, in such a way that information about
these can be processed in both simple ways (e.g. to count open heart
operations) and in complex ways (e.g in clinical decision-making protocols
for managing patients with heart problems).
To answer the question that I posed to Thomas, I think that for real
systems, terminology deals with the identification of concepts as attribute
values, not with the identification of objects (instances of classes), which
is a different but related problem.
To use a tree analogy. Terminology deals with the leaves, (a leaf is
something at the end of the hierarchy that has no children), not with the
root, trunk, boughs and branches (but the catch is that every tree, root,
bough and branch can also be thought of as a leaf, and this is where the
analogy breaks down).
Tim Benson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew po-jung Ho [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 16 April 2001 14:49
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Naming, was RE: Gehr and CEN
>
>
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:01:26 Tim Benson wrote:
> ...
> >There has long been a debate between those who think that terminologies
> >should be comprised of:
> >1. Atoms and hence taking the view that most terms are compound
> >2. Molecules (useful stable things)
> >3. Combinations of molecules (such as an FBC)
> >
> >Personally, I find the molecular approach the most straight
> forward. Where
> >do you stand?
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> Great question!
>
> In the OIO system, the smallest unit is an "item" on a form. An
> item is associated with an "itemtype" that constraints the "item"
> to a specific "action" over a response set. For example, the item
> 'sex of patient' can be of the itemtype 'sex', which has action
> 'pickone' over the response set 'male,female'.
>
> I think this is at the #2:"molecular" level.
>
> The level above the item is "form". A form can contain arbitrary
> number of items. That would be at level #3 in your scheme above.
> This is the extend of our current implementation.
>
> I have alluded to a level above "form" in some of my messages
> before. That would be "package of forms". I suppose it would be
> level #4, "three dimensional machines" that are made from
> "Combinations of molecules" :-). It will add workflow modeling
> which is a good analogy for machines.
>
> >If we use archetypes or templates (and I am afraid I still
> >have not fully grasped the difference) we still have the problem
> of naming
> >them.
>
> In the OIO system, naming is currently scoped at three levels:
> "Items", "Forms", and "OIO Library".
>
> Items within any form can be arbitrarily named by their creator.
> For a Form residing on a particular OIO Server, the creator of
> the form can name it anything he/she wants as long as it does not
> collide with an existing form on that OIO Server.
>
> If the form will be shared across different OIO Servers through
> the OIO Library, then it must not collide with any existing form
> in any of the OIO Libraries. This collision checking is done when
> the form is being uploaded to an OIO Library. If there is a
> collision, then the submitter of the form can rename the form.
>
> This is how naming is done in the OIO system. I look forward to
> feedback on the merits/problems that this approach entails and
> wonder how this differs from GEHR and other systems.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrew
> ---
> Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
> OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes
> www.TxOutcome.Org
> Assistant Clinical Professor
> Department of Psychiatry, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center
> University of California, Los Angeles
>
>
> Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora
> Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com
>
