In my own terms: - ENTRIES define the meta-data about one of five possible processes (ResultCollection/Observation, Inference/Assessment, Planning, Ordering, Execution - They express that as the result of one of these processes one or more statements about the patient system are documented. - Statements have the format: topic T has as result R, where T is an entity and R can be many things: number, code, multi media, etc. plus the context data dealing with: localisations in space, time and patient system, plus the particiapations, plys the reasons why, the method and confounding factors.
The Blood pressure that is documented is a named ?panel? consisting of two statements (systolic and diastolic) documented as the result of the ResultCollection/Observation process. And Apgar is the same. It is a named ?panel? consisting of multiple statements that have the nature of a questionnaire for documenting and processing observations. It can be seen as a complex semantic ordinal. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gfrer at luna.nl <mailto:gfrer at luna.nl> > On 2 apr. 2015, at 15:29, Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > wrote: > > oops - he did - but I missed in the formatting that he was being properly > precise (and I can't even claim ignorance, I know the syntax well, I've been > one of the reviewers of the drafts over the years). > > So this puts a different cast on the question. > > One of the things I believe we most urgently need to do in the ontology / > terminology area is to actually establish an ontology whose concepts > correspond to each archetype as a whole, and whose english-language mnemonic > names are understood to be the short names we use in the archetype > identifiers (i.e. things like 'apgar_score'). As mentioned in the Knowledge > Artefact Identification? > <http://www.openehr.org/releases/trunk/architecture/am/knowledge_id_system.pdf>document, > this ontology could potentially be situated under a new version of IAO > <http://www.ontobee.org/browser/rdf.php?o=IAO&iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000027>. > Note that all archetypes in openEHR (and I would argue in health) are > information objects _about_ some X, where X is some ontological entity. I.e. > the general epistemic X IS-ABOUT ontological X relation. > > In this sense, 'blood_pressure' doesn't mean blood pressure in the real > world, it means 'result of observation of blood pressure'. > > Things like Apgar are tricky because they are a first order information item, > even in the real world. So the Apgar_result archetype isn't really 'about' > Apgar result in the same sense. It's 'about' the health status of a newborn. > I'm not sure what the ontologist's view of this is... > > - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150403/4d1238c8/attachment.html>
