Hi Birger, I did read this paper some months ago and to be honest but as a non-computer scientist found it quite difficult to understand. It seems to be based on a comparison of a theoretical architectural approach based on high-level ontologies but also contains some puzzling assertions
e.g. "An archetype is a user-defined table in relational database models, so intentionally or not-intentionally notifying the ICT-focus of the Archetype approach." - which is almost universally incorrect and may have misled the entire assessment. and "However, the archetype schemas used, refer to existing ontologies like SNOMED CT [32] just as terminology. We should remember that SNOMED CT itself has developed from a terminology and is still in process of growing into a logically and ontologically coherent ontology. The problem still is a strong conceptualist legacy. So, it might be better to derive schemas from realism-based ontologies, e.g., from members or candidates of the OBO Foundry [13], most of which are based on BFO." when openEHR is completely terminology/ontology neutral and its own 'minimal ontology' Compostions, sections, Entries etc has no relationship to SNOMED CT whatsoever. The comparison with Hl7v3 seems to be to be completely spurious. HL7v3 constructs are directly analagous to those in openEHR and 13606 e.g "In contrast to the archetypes that are derived from a top down approach, the clinical statement structure in HL7 v3 allows a top down decomposition through the headers, sections, and core content. " how does this clinical statement structure with headers, sections and core content fundamentally differ from the openEHR/13606 approach? Finally .. "Therefore, they are facing the problem that the architectural representation and composition/decomposition of real-world classes and instances cannot be provided appropriately. Instead, the models are quite different from reality and themselves inconsistent." This statement makes the assumption that clinical modelling is trying to represent 'real-world' classes and instances, when we are actually trying to represent the content found within clinical records, not their 'real world' equivalents i.e the record of diagnosis of diabetes , not diabetes itself. The reason that the models are inconsistent is that we are reflecting the inconsistency found in clinical content capture and understanding. If every clinican in the world agreed on the content of an allergy record, or if the content could be derived from a scientific/logical examination of the concept , then perhaps ontology would have its place but ... in the real, messy inconsistent world such differences have to be resolved by negotiation and messy. emergent consensus not by the application of logics. or perhaps I have just missed the authors' point altogether! Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: ian at freshehr.com twitter: @ianmcnicoll Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Director, openEHR Foundation Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On 20 February 2015 at 13:29, Birger Haarbrandt <birger.haarbrandt at plri.de> wrote: > Hi folks, > > recently found this article by Blobel and Goossen: > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505613002013 > > Here are some quotes that I found interesting: > > "[openEHR Archteypes] they are facing the problem that the architectural > representation and composition/decomposition of real-world classes and > instances cannot be provided appropriately" > > "Nonetheless, their [(openEHR and CIMI)] architectural basis is > insufficient" > > "What is driving the development seems to be more competition and the > defense of market shares than a sophisticated methodology" > > "The demonstrated substantial weaknesses caused by ignoring the rediscovered > systems approach to the domains of discourse and the resulting needs for > architecturally sound and ontology-driven modeling approaches are inherent > in most of the health informatics standardization efforts intended to go > beyond the traditional health information systems? perspective toward a > comprehensive reflection of the business domain" > > I would love to hear some thoughts about the statements and the paper. > > Best, > > -- > Birger Haarbrandt, M.Sc. > > Peter L. Reichertz Institut f?r Medizinische Informatik > Technische Universit?t Braunschweig und > Medizinische Hochschule Hannover > M?hlenpfordtstra?e 23 > D-38106 Braunschweig > > T +49 (0)531 391-2129 > F +49 (0)531 391-9502 > birger.haarbrandt at plri.de > http://www.plri.de > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
