Hi All,
It has been an interesting conversation. Many thanks for everyone’s input.
However, I think we do have a reasonable potential solution.
It was Sebastian’s suggestion about governing at an intra-archetype level that
has caught my attention - marking an existing data element as outdated,
I'm curious of how this obsolete flag would be supported in a
implementation agnostic view.
How it is different of having several implementation guides for different
MU levels, an epSOS implementation guide (which changed the CDA reference
model itself), or even better, FHIR resources with same id
Hi Heather,
Although I agree with the idea of obsolete concepts, I wonder if it is
necessary in this case of Tilt. Why can’t we just add the additional units as
allowed options leaving the existing degrees symbol but in the element
description indicate that this is obsolete and the correct
Hi all,
As long as someone in the world performs medical research, our knowledge about
medicine will increase and change. This imply that changes in our information
models and ontologies due to new knowledge (and pervious errors) are something
constant and something every implementer needs to
Hi Vebjørn,
I hope I did not give the impression that I was in any way suggesting that
the Norwegian clinical reviewers were being obscure or unreasonable and
causing problems, or that tilt is not used in some applications. The review
team have done exactly what we ask of them - to point out
Hi Ian,
I should probably clarify that the versioning mechanism in SNOMED CT is more
than a technical thing. The versioning mechanism also includes guidelines about
how to handle the changes in the receiving system. However, the guidelines are
distributes in a form that is machine (and human)
6 matches
Mail list logo