Hi,
(This mail goes to OpenHealth just to have it archived somewhere else.
There is nothing new in it; please ignore.)
Two days ago I had sent an email to the OpenEHR-technical list announcing
an article. The mail did not arrive. So I send it once more below:
== START ==
As promised some weeks
My sincere apologies! The mail arrived. I just checked the archive:
http://www.openehr.org/advice/openehr-technical/maillist.html
Sorry again,
Christian
On Friday, 6. January 2006 00:35, Christian Heller wrote:
Hi,
(This mail goes to OpenHealth just to have it archived somewhere else
Hello,
as promised some weeks ago, I have written an article trying
to describe some of the ideas behind CYBOP. It is called
Reflexions on Knowledge Modelling and can be found at:
http://cybop.berlios.de/papers/index.html
It may not be of best quality, and was rejected by all evaluators
for the
I think this conversation needs to be off-line as it is more
philosophical and feels like lets start all over again. We do need
to be able to justify the openEHR approach but not on this technical
list. I am very interested in an informed critique of the openEHR
approach if you read our
Dear Sam,
We have been discussing the issue of templates and whether we keep an
identifier of a template in the data. My concern has been that this ID
might be seen as an absolute constraint on the data, whereas the precedence
of constraint must be:
knowledge models (reference models as
Hi Thomas,
well, that is one design approach, but it is not the one that we use in
openEHR. In openEHR, the archetypes are seen as part of the ontology of
information (distinct from ontologies of the real world like
snomed-ct etc). We use them extensively in their own right. We don't
I
Hi,
I've just published a paper called A new Pattern Systematics:
http://cybop.berlios.de/papers/2005_new_pattern_systematics/paper.pdf
Perhaps useful for the software developers among you.
Regards,
Christian
-
If you have any questions about using this list,
please send a message to d.lloyd at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
.. the promised paper:
http://cybop.berlios.de/papers/2004_cybernetics_oriented_language/paper.pdf
Christian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFA/NTiFjkDu8gr540RAsmzAJ47TG9VaVUwIZ2OUTfnsDWqIRuveQCeJzxY
Hi Philippe,
Don't you think that your vision depends on the feeling you get and the
tools you are familiar with ?
of course, everybody has a different vision of the world, depending on
how their brain was learned. The principle concepts of human thinking
(not physically in brain but logically
The CR to be considered in this post is CR-000101- Improve Modelling of
Structure classes. See
http://www.openehr.org/repositories/spec/latest/publishing/CM/CRs/CR-00010
1.txt . This CR proposes a change to the Data structure classes which makes
for more efficient data representation. The
Christian, you may have misunderstood - the 'meaning' fields in an
archetype are the node-level ids - which also double as codes, whose
meaning is given in the lower part of the archetype. See for example
http://www.openehr.org/repositories/archetype/latest/adl/archetypes/openehr
- every concept, everything in existence (as the human mind perceives it)
is hierarchical, to microcosm as well as towards macrocosm
Including the brain itself ?
Yes, because in our concept of a brain it consists of regions,
neuron cells, organelles, molecules etc.
You have to distinguish
physical brain == carrier of knowledge == neurons, synapses etc. == real
world
But they are not interconnected in a hierarchy only, to the
best of my knowledge.
I did not say that. I was talking about concepts (mind) only.
The mind knows about itself and its physical carrier, the brain.
13 matches
Mail list logo
