Just a remark. With the presence of things like MedBiquitous, UMLS, HL7,
etc. etc. lurking around, each of them claiming to speak for God, I think
that the wisest course for open socerers in medicine to follow is to
develop a means of facilely moving between all these candidate data
representations. I wonder if machine translation software (for example
www.softissimo.com which is truly unbelievable) could help. The idea
would be not quite what I think Andrew is proposing. It would be
incremental translation between all the candidates.
For another application, namely patient identification, CORBAmed PIDS
already does this, but that's integration at the application level, perhaps
not what is needed here. And it's for a very small namespace: one person
at a time.
In sum, one might be well-advised *not* to try to develop yet another
terminology, but rather develop something that translates between *any* two
terminologies...with a minimum of effort.
John
At 03:59 PM 5/29/01, you wrote:
>Hello Wayne,
>
>While on the surface, I agree with you, I personally haven't seen much of
>substance come from the medical professional societies on collaboration.
>That is one of the reasons that I think that individual clinicians working a
>few minutes here or there to contribute to a growing OpenOntology might be a
>better solution.
>
>I don't really know what is going to work, but I am thinking the smaller and
>more international the better.
>
>My .02 euros
>
>Todd Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wayne Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >My 2 cents are to try involve the professional societies, at
> >least here in the US, I don't know about elsewhere.
