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

Le 05/04/2018 à 15:43, Thomas Beale a écrit : > we really should build a combined descriptive architecture to show how > all this fits together to solve: > > * the continuum of deterministic - non-deterministic utterances > possible in healthcare > * the linguistic interface v structured

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

On 05/04/2018 13:50, Philippe Ameline wrote: In my mind, fils guides and archetype are of different kind: an archetype is a flexible information schema and nodes that were "build using this mold" keep a link to it ; on the contrary, a fil guide is nothing more than a UI helper that makes a

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Philippe, Can I understand that you file-guide are patterns that fit archetypes so Healthcare Providers can compose whatever they want. The file-guides insertions are context driven. The system of file-guides acts like an Ontology for clinical/administrative content. Archetypes define how

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

Le 05/04/2018 à 12:16, Thomas Beale a écrit : > On 02/04/2018 18:38, Philippe Ameline wrote: >> >> Actually, I don't think that I use grammar in an unusual way. If I do >> it technically, lets assume for the sake of the discussion that I am >> really talking about a grammar, ie a set of rules

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

On 02/04/2018 18:38, Philippe Ameline wrote: Actually, I don't think that I use grammar in an unusual way. If I do it technically, lets assume for the sake of the discussion that I am really talking about a grammar, ie a set of rules that allows you to interpret an arrangement of concepts

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Thomas, I will have to digest it. I’ll be back. GF Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 3 Apr 2018, at 11:08, Thomas Beale wrote: > > Some theory along these lines >

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

 Some theory along these lines is needed... On 03/04/2018 08:35, A Verhees wrote: GF :"There are NO agreed standardised archetypes/patterns we all use to define the meta-data in order to document the

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

It is a generic problem that impacts OpenEHR also. Present systems need a lot of implicit human knowledge in order to interpret the data safely and fully. SNOMED pre-corodination is one way to make this implicit knowledge explicit. It possibly is a solution. My point is that it is not the best

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Check the initial messages on the thread. Basically how to use SNOMED in openEHR, and in a specific area: data querying. AQL support for SNOMED codes and expressions was an initial part of the topic. We are trying to solve a basic problem: how to get data out the systems in a smart way. This is

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

That is the problem. There is no focus. This discussion will not solve anything. Op di 3 apr. 2018 09:48 schreef GF : > It is Obvious: > > - We need to take the next step in Semantic Interoperability: Semantic > interpretability. > - And think about what is missing, so far > -

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

It is Obvious: - We need to take the next step in Semantic Interoperability: Semantic interpretability. - And think about what is missing, so far - How to use codes from Terminologies and Classifications - How to deal with the full Context/Epistemology - How to deal with modifiers for

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Op di 3 apr. 2018 09:43 schreef GF : > Archetype modelling and the use of SNOMED pre- and/or post-coordination > You too have a nice day > > > Gerard Freriks > +31 620347088 > gf...@luna.nl > > Kattensingel 20 > 2801 CA Gouda > the Netherlands > > On 3 Apr 2018, at 09:31, A

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Archetype modelling and the use of SNOMED pre- and/or post-coordination Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 3 Apr 2018, at 09:31, A Verhees wrote: > > Can we specific define in about ten words which problem

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

GF :"There are NO agreed standardised archetypes/patterns we all use to define the meta-data in order to document the full eppistemology > so data can be interpreted fully and safely. " > So what do you suggest as a solution? > > > > >> >> Gerard Freriks >> +31 620347088 >>

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

I agree > The message is simple: don't allow items with complex meanings in leafnodes, > but use archetypes to represent complexity. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 3 Apr 2018, at 00:04, A Verhees wrote:

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Can we specific define in about ten words which problem is talked about in this discussion? Maybe we can then use that definition as a guideline to keep the discussion focussed. Best regards Bert Verhees Op di 3 apr. 2018 01:19 schreef Pablo Pazos : > Please see

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

see below Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 2 Apr 2018, at 23:35, A Verhees wrote: > > GF: "When we add to all this that only part of the epistemology can be > pre-coordinated it means that part of the

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Please see below, On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 6:17 PM, GF wrote: > Is that so? > > There will be systems that allow pre-coordinated codes. There will be > systems that use as many pre-coordinated codes. And several in between > solutions. > I agree, there will be systems that allow

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

In addition to this, OpenEhr tends to the use of simple precoordinated concepts, that is because the archetypes explain the details. It is, for example, rare in OpenEhr to use the concept for "bloodpressure sitting". Normally one would create two leafnodes, one with the concept for

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

GF: "When we add to all this that only part of the epistemology can be pre-coordinated it means that part of the temporal aspects for instance can NOT be dealt with in SNOMED, then we have the situation that part of the epistemology is in SNOMED and part defined in the Archetype/Template." ---

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Philippe. 1- documentation in health and care, as you wrote, can have two points of focus: - focus: the healthcare provider: as author documenting in his EHR about the patient what this HcP has done - focus the patient: as subject of care allowing other HcProviders as authors to document what

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Le 02/04/2018 à 19:45, GF a écrit : > 1- What stands AP)SA(A'P’) for? I guess that you know the SOAP as the 4 main "chapters" of a clinical encounter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAP_note). From  Lawrence Weed's concepts, a patient encounter should be recorded as a "grid" with problems as

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

1- What stands AP)SA(A'P’) for? Here below some missing topics we need to have agreement about 2- Thinking about the health and care provission documentation process there are: - Observation process - Evaluation process (including, and restricted to, diagnosis, diff diagnosis, problem kist,

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

Sorry, this was a reply to Philippe on his message on 14:07 Op ma 2 apr. 2018 15:16 schreef A Verhees : > Mostly a patients history is regarded in a consultation. Mostly this is > history from after the start of the electronical era and being treated in > the Netherlands .

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

Le 02/04/2018 à 12:54, A Verhees a écrit : > > The "good all" SOAP is dead ; nowadays, the encounter stream is switching to > (AP)SO(A'P'):  > > people now come with an existing set of Assessments and Procedures,  > > not "just" with "Subjective" issues. > > Wasn't that always the case? We are

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

> The "good all" SOAP is dead ; nowadays, the encounter stream is switching to (AP)SO(A'P'): > people now come with an existing set of Assessments and Procedures, > not "just" with "Subjective" issues. > Wasn't that always the case? ___

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

Le 01/04/2018 à 14:13, Thomas Beale a écrit : > On 31/03/2018 10:38, Philippe Ameline wrote: >> ... >> >> When I try to explain all this to lesser tech-savvy people (means, >> who don't belong to this list ;-) ), I usually explain that: >> - usual systems (with an information schema tied to a

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

Thomas, If I had to sum up the debate, I would write something like: - pre-coordination is necessary for legacy systems that stick to coding systems and didn't make the move to more elaborated representation of information, - pre-coordination's drawback is that expressing sentences as concepts

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Pablo, It is as Thomas and I wrote. Open world Assumption: Ontologies declare absolute truths irrespective of geographical location and point in time. Closed World Assumption: Archetypes help express what an author wants to document. These are very subjective truths at a point in time. This

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

I think, we happen to be in full agreement. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 2 Apr 2018, at 01:06, Thomas Beale wrote: > > > In a so-called closed-world system, everything that is stated constitutes

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

I'm sorry but "...no cancer was, is, or will be present." doesn't even make sense. No system can record what can or can't happen in the future, and that concept is not part of any terminology AFAIK. On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 7:35 PM, GF wrote: > Thomas, > > OpenEHR and 13606 deal

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

In a so-called closed-world system, everything that is stated constitutes the totality of the truths about the world it relates to. In particular, /absence/ of an assertion (such as 'patient X has cancer') means negation, i.e. that patient X doesn't have cancer. But openEHR and 13606 don't

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Thomas, OpenEHR and 13606 deal with Closed World Assumption systems. And therefor both mean in the case of 'No Cancer' that Cancer was not found in the database or that No Cancer was the documented result of an evaluation. Both statements are documented things in a Template that according to the

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

On 01/04/2018 13:16, GF wrote: Pre-coordinated SNOMED codes are like classifications, in that they are used at the user level, the User Interface, The Ontology behind SNOMED allows the pre-ordinated codes to be decomposed in its constituents. These decomposed primitive codes can be used in

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

One thing I have noticed in recent systems in Brazil I looked at is that the codes are locally defined (e.g. SIGTAP, a Brazilian vocabulary for procedures) and almost all pre-coordinations of the most unscientific kind (with terms of the form 'cholecystectomy performed at private or military

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

In system interfaces we must not use pre-coordinted SNOMED terms. In User Interfaces we can to use them. In extremo one pre-co-ordinated code can describe the whole oeuvre of Shakespeare which makes sense in very specific circumstances for very specific purposes Gerard Freriks +31 620347088

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Pre-coordinated SNOMED codes are like classifications, in that they are used at the user level, the User Interface, The Ontology behind SNOMED allows the pre-ordinated codes to be decomposed in its constituents. These decomposed primitive codes can be used in structures like archetypes at the

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

On 31/03/2018 10:38, Philippe Ameline wrote: ... When I try to explain all this to lesser tech-savvy people (means, who don't belong to this list ;-) ), I usually explain that: - usual systems (with an information schema tied to a database schema) are like a printed form. The day after you

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

ong because it doesn’t take into account that >>> healthcare is unpredictable, and this makes recording more difficult for >>> the clinician. How many different variations would you have to select from? >>> Take the made up example “sitting systolic blood pressure with a medi

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

e, and this makes recording more difficult for >>> the clinician. How many different variations would you have to select from? >>> Take the made up example “sitting systolic blood pressure with a medium >>> cuff on the left upper arm”; this will be a lot of possible

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

d you have to select from? >> Take the made up example “sitting systolic blood pressure with a medium >> cuff on the left upper arm”; this will be a lot of possible permutations, >> especially if you take into account all the different permutations where >> one or more variable isn

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

ormation, because that information to a large >> extent still belongs to living patients. >> >> >> It would be interesting to have your opinion about why it is a real problem >> with the “extra” pre-coordinated concepts in SNOMED CT in general and not >&g

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

; >   > > Regards, > > *Silje* > >   > > *From:*openEHR-technical > <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org > <mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org>> *On Behalf > Of *Mikael Nyström > *Sent:* Fr

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 -

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Le 30/03/2018 à 17:38, Thomas Beale a écrit : > > Paths is also how openEHR querying works, and in pretty much the same > way, except for the technical fact of using archetype codes rather > than literal strings. > > - thomas > I wrote literal strings for clarity ; actually it is a path of codes

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Gerard, I don't know that your modelling approach is that far from openEHR - you are from memory using CLUSTER in a way we are not, but I don't recall the details. In any case, is there a recent reference page on the web where a technical summary of your modelling style can be seen? thanks

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Philippe, Fist of all: My ideas about modelling and using archetype, etc is not shared by OpenEhr I agree that the tree is important. My tree starts at Composition contaiining one of more Sections, and/or Entries. The Entry models a process of one of these: data observation, data evaluation,

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Paths is also how openEHR querying works, and in pretty much the same way, except for the technical fact of using archetype codes rather than literal strings. - thomas On 30/03/2018 16:25, Philippe Ameline wrote: For example: Echocardiography     Indication             Findings    

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Le 30/03/2018 à 16:49, GF a écrit : > Philippe, > > I understand Archetypes are discourse models and form a sentences > A collection of sentences (Entry Archetypes) form one > story/session/Composition and define the content of a system-interface > connected to a database, or screen, or other

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Philippe, I understand Archetypes are discourse models and form a sentences A collection of sentences (Entry Archetypes) form one story/session/Composition and define the content of a system-interface connected to a database, or screen, or other service like a messaging system. In my terms: A

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

Hi Philippe, See inline please On Friday, March 30, 2018, Philippe Ameline wrote: > Le 28/03/2018 à 23:42, GF a écrit : > > I see the analogies: > - Ontology = Encyclopedia > - Terminology = Dictionary > - Archetype = Phrase > > > Hi Gerard, > > I would rather see

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Le 28/03/2018 à 23:42, GF a écrit : > I see the analogies: > - Ontology= Encyclopedia > - Terminology = Dictionary > - Archetype = Phrase Hi Gerard, I would rather see Archetypes as "discourse models" that form a mold for sentences or groups of sentences. The Phrase, in you enumeration, would

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Dear Philippe, On purpose I provided these examples. I agree that anatomic structures can be pre-coordinated. They are the exception to the rule. And perhaps in the domain of medical devices we could have exceptions. I see the analogies: - Ontology = Encyclopedia - Terminology =

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

>> *From:* openEHR-technical >> <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org >> <mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org>> *On Behalf >> Of *Mikael Nyström >> *Sent:* Thursday, 22 March 2018 1:00 AM >> *To:* For openEHR technical discus

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

-technical digest..." Today's Topics:    1. Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again (A Verhees) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 06:25:19 + From: A Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl> To: For o

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

; > *Från:* openEHR-technical [mailto: > openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] *För *Bert Verhees > *Skickat:* den 23 mars 2018 20:01 > > > *Till:* openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org > *Ämne:* Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again > > > > Diego, this is a wise thoug

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

boun...@lists.openehr.org> *On > Behalf Of *Bakke, Silje Ljosland > *Sent:* Friday, 23 March 2018 8:35 PM > > > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions < > openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> > > *Subject:* RE: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again >

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Yes. The simple rules that solve the Boundary Problem need some exceptions. - anatomical structure - possibly some aspects of devices To investigate it properly is a possibility. The problem I see is the How question. For me there is only one solution and that is by analysing the problem and

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

:35 PM To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> Subject: RE: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again I read Thomas' reply with great interest, and I generally agree that with a well thought out information model, the very detailed precoordinated

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

*Mikael Nyström *Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2018 10:06 AM *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org <mailto:openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>> *Subject:* SV: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again Hi tom, I can agree w

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Dear Silje, I think we agree. In my view it is not wise to use pre-coorinated codes that include contextual information. The reason is that the complete why, when, who and how result in too many permutations in order to be tractable. One must make the distinction between how data is expressed

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

:* openEHR-technical <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org> *On > Behalf Of *Mikael Nyström > *Sent:* Friday, March 23, 2018 10:06 AM > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists. > openehr.org> > *Subject:* SV: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ...

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

day, March 23, 2018 10:06 AM > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists. > openehr.org> > *Subject:* SV: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again > > > > Hi tom, > > > > I can agree with you that if SNOMED CT was created when all pati

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Thomas, I agree with your opinions. In summary: Model 1- Ontological models define primitive concepts in Terminologies. Concepts that one can expect to see in a dictionary. Model 2- Archetypes define compound concepts using primitive concepts from terminologies. Archetypes are models that

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

om: openEHR-technical <openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org> On Behalf Of Mikael Nyström Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 10:06 AM To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> Subject: SV: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again Hi tom, I can agree w

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

Hi Mikael, On 23/03/2018 09:05, Mikael Nyström wrote: Hi tom, I can agree with you that if SNOMED CT was created when all patients in the world already had all information in their health record recorded using cleverly built and structured information models (like archetypes, templates

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

.org] För Thomas Beale Skickat: den 23 mars 2018 01:06 Till: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org Ämne: Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again I have made some attempts to study the problem in the past, not recently, so I don't know how much the content has changed in the last 5 years. Two po

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

I have made some attempts to study the problem in the past, not recently, so I don't know how much the content has changed in the last 5 years. Two points come to mind: 1. the problem of a profusion of pre-coordinated and post-coordinatable concepts during a *lexically-based choosing process

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org>> On Behalf Of Mikael > Nyström > Sent: Thursday, 22 March 2018 1:00 AM > To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org > <mailto:openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org>> > Subject: SV: S

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

Mikael Från: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] För Heather Leslie Skickat: den 22 mars 2018 08:01 Till: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> Ämne: RE: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... aga

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

penehr-technical@lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again Hi Heather, In general, anyone is welcome to participate in the work; you don't need to be one of the small number of Advisory Group members. That helps with travel costs, but most of the real work i

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

ehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org> on behalf of Heather Leslie <heather.les...@atomicainformatics.com> Sent: Thursday, 22 March 2018 9:46 AM To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: RE: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again Hi Mikael, What efforts are being made to resolv

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

t;openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> Subject: SV: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again Hi Tom, I believe that you proposal to ”move / remove the pre-coordinated codes out of SNOMED” is very appealing in theory. However it is very difficult in reality to agree on where the line between a

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

: Re: SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again Nevertheless, I think it would have been good to move / remove the pre-coordinated codes out of SNOMED, and leave a pure post-coordinatable core, which would actually look a lot more like Philippe's (much smaller) terminology. This relates

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

Nevertheless, I think it would have been good to move / remove the pre-coordinated codes out of SNOMED, and leave a pure post-coordinatable core, which would actually look a lot more like Philippe's (much smaller) terminology. This relates to the old debate on reference v interface

SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Mikael -Ursprungligt meddelande- Från: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] För Philippe Ameline Skickat: den 15 mars 2018 16:18 Till: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org Ämne: Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again Le 15/03/2018 à 00:34, Mikael Nystr

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Le 16/03/2018 à 13:11, Thomas Beale a écrit : > Ad hoc negation, in German ;) > > But that's not really the fault of ICD10; it's a misuse of it. One > might argue that it occurs because ICD10 doesn't provide a proper way > of representing exclusions, only positive identifications. And that's > an

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Ad hoc negation, in German ;) But that's not really the fault of ICD10; it's a misuse of it. One might argue that it occurs because ICD10 doesn't provide a proper way of representing exclusions, only positive identifications. And that's an old, long debate... - thomas On 16/03/2018 07:41,

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:56:07PM +, Mikael Nyström wrote: > Yes, of cause it is! My main point was that a statistical > classification is a simpler product than a clinical ontology > and it is therefore also easier to implement a statistical > classification than a clinical ontology. And

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

As Ricardo already said, "Pathological fracture of ankle due to secondary osteoporosis" is less a "word" and more a "phrase" that computers can easily understand, because it is equivalent to: 64572001 |Disease (disorder)| : 42752001 |Due to| = 703264005 |Secondary osteoporosis (disorder)|

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Le 15/03/2018 à 20:30, Ricardo Gonçalves a écrit : > > I too want to look at the the future and picture a state of art > component and hopefully a [health] technological utopia, but a lot of > work led us to what is currently available. Are we taking that to > try/improve things and get

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

ists.openehr.org You can reach the person managing the list at openehr-technical-ow...@lists.openehr.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of openEHR-technical digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings .

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

nical [mailto:openehr-technical- > boun...@lists.openehr.org] *On Behalf Of *Pablo Pazos > *Sent:* den 14 mars 2018 23:58 > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists. > openehr.org> > *Subject:* RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again > > > > But

Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

<openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org> *Cc:* For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> *Subject:* Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again " but in some cases, /it is missing concepts/" Shouldn't we contribute? Is the same as openEHR, there

RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

@lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again Le 13/03/2018 à 18:01, Bert Verhees a écrit : > On 13-03-18 17:45, Philippe Ameline wrote: >> in my own terms, it means that it is not the proper component for >> modern applications. > > Wasn't it Voltaire who said that

RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Ameline Sent: den 13 mars 2018 17:45 To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again Thomas, Since, in that domain (terminologies, classification, ontologies...), it is not that easy to understand someone

RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

ini...@lists.openehr.org> Cc: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> Subject: Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again " but in some cases, it is missing concepts" Shouldn't we contribute? Is the same as openEHR, there are missing archetypes and

RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

discussions <openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org> Subject: Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again The killer move would be to do something I advocated for years unsuccessfully: separate SNOMED technology from content and allow them to be independently licensable and used. Here, tech

RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

gt; > > > > > *From:* openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical- > boun...@lists.openehr.org] *On Behalf Of *Philippe Ameline > *Sent:* den 13 mars 2018 13:32 > *To:* openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org > *Subject:* Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again > > > > Le

RE: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

. Regards Mikael From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Ameline Sent: den 13 mars 2018 13:32 To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

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

  1   2   >