> > How to model an endoscopic examination, since it can not
> > only be done for ulcers but also for numerous other
> > purposes?
Look at the workflow.
Along the way you can throw off various record elements in any
way that is convenient.
On Monday 10 February 2003 16:13, Andrew Ho wrote:
> Thus, how an "endoscopic exam" is modeled must depend on its
> "purpose".
I'd hope to model something that gets the right patient and
presents a data sink at each point the clinical and admin team
need to record new data.
A small proportion of the record will depend upon the actual
orifice, instrument and pathology.
> There must be a "translator" or mediator that goes between the
> two.
>
> What Adrian Midgley says about inheritance etc makes sense if
> and only if a universal set of controlled vocabulary/metadata
> are fully accepted and used. I believe this approach has been
> tried many times and will not work.
It doesn't have to be universal.
It doesn't have to be controlled, (although a degree of common
purpose and restraint among users helps. The medical
profession already uses a vocabulary.)
It doesn't have to be acceptd by everyone or used by all.
I suspect that attempts to control rather than encourage
concensus and donate work have been responsible for several
failures.
> 2) You can either construct or download a mediator that can
> translate information from the specialist into your own
> "format" (archetype/form).
> Does this make sense?
Does this not imply completely understanding two classification
structures, so as to translate between them, and if another
party joins the work, three classification structures, so as to
translate between any pair of them and if another party joins
the work 4 so as to translate in 4! ways which is the
exponential road to chaos and confusion.
> > Storing the specialist archetypes would not make sense since
> > the GP doesn't need them for his day-to-day work and if he
> > did store them, how would the specialist "ulcer" archetype
> > interfere with his own archetype?
> In the OIO system, the GP can keep the specialist form around
> if he/she wishes to continue to view the information in its
> original form.
The GP might well need to send information to another specialist
of the same or a different speciality.
So it would be handy to be able to forward the specialist
templated form.
> If the GP keeps the specialist's form, this
> form will not change or interfere with the GP's own ulcer
> form. They are two distinct and separate forms - although
> information can move between them through the mediator /
> translator.
Given that the translator works from an adequate understanding
and maintenance of both forms' underlying metadata and its
relationship to the mundane world.
--
From one of the Linux desktops of Dr Adrian Midgley
http://www.defoam.net/
