Re: Term bindings in archetypes and templates

[Thomas Beale <thomas.beale@oceaninformatics.com>]

On 10/03/2010 22:16, Mikael Nyström wrote:

I belong to a group that, except for openEHR related research, also do
research about terminology systems and terminology systems mapping. During
mapping from one terminology system to another terminology system is it
quite common to be unable to map properly, because the two terminology
systems have divided the domain in different ways. This problem appears even
when mapping to SNOMED CT, which have a broad coverage and a concept model
allowing a broad set of relationships. My view is that the same problem will
appear when finalized archetypes are bound to existing terminology systems.
  

it will certainly appear. The question is: for those archetype nodes that it is useful to bind to terminology (likely to be 10% or less), how close is the match? For example, in labs, it should be nearly spot on. For anatomy, it should be pretty close. For diseases, the disease concept in an archetype will assume that it is coded in the first place by terminology, so the only problem there is mapping problems from ICD to SCT etc. I think we need to look at the actual size of the concrete problem, not its theoretical worst case.

- thomas

_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical