Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

What I say is that legacy applications or current systems usually offer limited options with the knowledge available when they were created. These options were decided back in the day and usually fit with precoordinated terms. And defining this subsets helps on going forward El sáb., 31 mar. 2018

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Style can be explained, please do. Documentation ontology can be useful. Please send that too. Thanks Bert Op za 31 mrt. 2018 13:27 schreef GF : > What do you expect from a technical description when it comes to styles? > Under the hood one sees no striking differences. >

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

What do you expect from a technical description when it comes to styles? Under the hood one sees no striking differences. Archetype nodes are archetype nodes, leafnodes are leafnodes. What is different is the way one uses ADL to constrain the RM. Or do you mean to see the documentation Ontology?

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Sorry, I am reading on my phone and it seems I missed an email. I read further day after tomorrow when I have a descent email client. Best regards Bert Op za 31 mrt. 2018 13:06 schreef A Verhees : > Okay. Do you have a technical description of what you are talking about? >

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Okay. Do you have a technical description of what you are talking about? Thanks Bert Op za 31 mrt. 2018 12:31 schreef GF : > In my opinion there is something essential missing, so far. > What is missing is a collection of standard Cluster archetypes/Patterns > that can be used to

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

In my opinion there is something essential missing, so far. What is missing is a collection of standard Cluster archetypes/Patterns that can be used to create any story, describing the observation/evaluation/planning/ordering and action processes including all the possible contexts. All the

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

The specialisation in the OpenEHR RM itself is an anomaly, that can be circumvented. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 31 Mar 2018, at 12:14, Bert Verhees wrote: > > On 31-03-18 12:11, GF wrote: >> Both

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

On 31-03-18 12:11, GF wrote: Both styles are possible with any RM. It is a choice. Do you mean, inside OpenEhr by using the GenericEntry? Or are there other entry-types possible also? Most archetype modellers use the Class-Attribute / Archetype Node style. Gerard   Freriks +31 620347088

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Both styles are possible with any RM. It is a choice. Most archetype modellers use the Class-Attribute / Archetype Node style. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 31 Mar 2018, at 11:04, Bert Verhees wrote: >

Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Diego, IMHO your contribution is orthogonal to what Thomas very accurately explained. Building subset is a symptom of the issue, not a solution. As I tried to explain in my initial post, we are currently facing two generation of technologies in medicine: - systems that record information as

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Maybe we should relate this thinking to CEN13606 because that Reference Model allows more generic thinking. (Thinking this because GF was the convenor of this CEN standard) But even then some more explanation would be welcome. Bert On 31-03-18 10:37, GF wrote: Dear Thomas, There are two

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Dear Thomas, There are two possible Modelling styles: - Archetype Leafnode style (Element-Data style) Specialisation by changing the Element Data field Each archetype is a fixed, standardised, pattern, a mini-ontology The fixed path to the leaf-node defines the full meaning of that leaf-node -