RE: Term bindings in archetypes and templates
Thomas Beale wrote:
> 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.
I agree that we have to wait and see how much problems we will get.
That was
also my reason to reply to Sebastian's e-mail which told that there is
no
problem to add terminology bindings after the archetypes are finalized.
However, I didn't refer to "theoretical worst case". I referred to
actual
problems that have appeared for us during both our research work and in
our
national SNOMED CT project in Sweden.
Greetings,
Mikael
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical