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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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

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

Hi Philippe, I think that you have missed that SNOMED CT is created for multiple use cases. Your use case that you describe as "a modern approach" is a good use case that I like. In that use case SNOMED CT can be used in the way you describe using SNOMED CT's concepts a little higher up in the

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

Interesting times indeed :-) Le 12/03/2018 à 18:06, Birger Haarbrandt a écrit : > Please never underestimate the Germans... > > Am 12.03.2018 um 14:54 schrieb Mikael Nyström: >> Will France as usual be the last country that adopt something that originate >> from Great Britain? :-) >> >>

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

Please never underestimate the Germans... Am 12.03.2018 um 14:54 schrieb Mikael Nyström: Hi, Have anybody ever heard about a health-it-project that hadn't a smaller or larger group of sceptic people that try to build momentum against the project? :-) For SNOMED CT the trend at least seems

SV: [Troll] Terminology bindings ... again

Hi, Have anybody ever heard about a health-it-project that hadn't a smaller or larger group of sceptic people that try to build momentum against the project? :-) For SNOMED CT the trend at least seems to be that fewer and fewer people belongs to the sceptic group, and about half of the