Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

+1 but for the focus of this conversation I think we are trying to solve (find a relatively good enough solution) the clinical side and use detailed terminologies for that. On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Mikael Nyström wrote: > Hi Pablo, > > > > Yes, of cause it is! My

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Of course we should contribute missing concepts - that's a given (and the mechanisms for doing so are always improving), but read my post again, that is not really the main problem with where we are now - I'm talking about strategic directions. - thomas On 14/03/2018 23:19, Mikael Nyström

RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Hi Philippe It seems like you are making a big deal of that SNOMED CT is an ancient product, but I would like to see your explicit arguments about that instead of only negative generalizations. From my point of view it is quite modern with an OWL based ontology with additional features for

RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Hi Philippe, If you only would like to use some of the basic concepts as building blocks in post-coordinated expressions using for example the SNOMED CT Compositional Grammar Specification and Guide (http://snomed.org/scg) and skip the more complex/combined concepts you are more than welcome

RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Hi Pablo, I totally agree with you. Regards Mikael From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Pablo Pazos Sent: den 13 mars 2018 19:01 To: For openEHR clinical discussions

RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Hi Tom, I don’t see that your “first killer move” by separating SNOMED CT technology from content would make that much sense. The specification and technology you are describing in quite many sentences in your e-mail seems to be quite much like the EN 14463 Classification Markup Language

RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

But ICD is a statistical not a clinical tool. On Mar 14, 2018 7:10 PM, "Mikael Nyström" wrote: > Hi, > > > > Of cause it is possible to create something that is easier to use. ICD-10 > is a good example of something that have similarities with SNOMED CT and is > both (for

RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Hi, Of cause it is possible to create something that is easier to use. ICD-10 is a good example of something that have similarities with SNOMED CT and is both (for some use cases) easier to implement and more widespread. But I if you want something that is based on logic, because you want to

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

On 14/03/2018 14:57, Philippe Ameline wrote: Le 14/03/2018 à 12:41, Thomas Beale a écrit : so the long term solution is healthcare data and major services (workflow / process) must eventually be part of a back-end system that isn't owned by any product vendor or care delivery location, but

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Le 14/03/2018 à 12:41, Thomas Beale a écrit : > so the long term solution is healthcare data and major services > (workflow / process) must eventually be part of a back-end system that > isn't owned by any product vendor or care delivery location, but > instead managed on behalf of the patient by

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Le 14/03/2018 à 12:41, Thomas Beale a écrit : > Translated in technological concepts, my own take is that is means > switching: >> >> - from a record oriented vision to a project management vision (a >> record is the place where you optimize your own decision support >> ability through keeping

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

On 14/03/2018 11:10, Philippe Ameline wrote: because the structures take care of all data points, not just coded ones. But your /fils guides/ are rather special - they do the same thing, unlike an ordinary grammar, so it's not really an argument. In fact I would say that today we could

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

On 14/03/2018 10:28, Philippe Ameline wrote: Bert, The main reason I mentioned the [Troll] hashtag was because I am really conscious that what I say is far from being mainstream. Hence I consider myself honored that some of the things I say can "rock the boat" a little bit and raise

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

> because the structures take care of all data points, not just coded > ones. But your /fils guides/ are rather special - they do the same > thing, unlike an ordinary grammar, so it's not really an argument. In > fact I would say that today we could derive a computable > transformation from the

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:28:28AM +0100, Philippe Ameline wrote: > because MD > keep seeing information systems as "back office" components, also > because they are often individualists very at ease in silos (practice > and specialty)) Practitioners need to be able to control their space for,

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Bert, The main reason I mentioned the [Troll] hashtag was because I am really conscious that what I say is far from being mainstream. Hence I consider myself honored that some of the things I say can "rock the boat" a little bit and raise several questions. To tell it roughly, I consider that