hi Tom I can only presume this email actually predated our other discussion
> a) a response to some (undoubtedly real) needs by the hL7v3 design group, > and are modelled according to the hL7v3 architecture, not some other > architecture. which architecture is, everything completely denormalised. And so they're not suitable for an environment where you want to normalise. y. > I am not even sure the spec is clear itself on what originalText really is: > > Original text can be used in a structured user interface to capture what the > user saw as a representation of the code on the data input screen, or in a > situation where the user dictates or directly enters text, it is the text > entered or uttered by the user > > So is it a representation of the code on the data input screen (i.e. the > term for the code) ? Or is it some other freely entered text to which a code > (and term) is being attached? Why is originalText 'semantic' and > 'displayName' not - when it is in fact the proper linguistic rendering of > the code, and therefore surely 'semantic'? OriginalText is a problem. The definition was agonised over a great deal. It's the text that's the basis one which the code was assigned - if there is any. displayName is an algorithmic conversion from the code to it's designated display. Generally, the two are logically exclusive - it doesn't make sense to have one and not the other. But sometimes it does. grrr. > a true synonym (different linguistic rendering of the same concept), AND > a mapping - usually done for classification purposes, e.g. association of a > broad ICD or DRG code to some specific disease or condition text. maybe. The definition doesn't seem crisp to me. How precise does the different linguistic rendering have to be before it's a true synonym? If it's not a synonym, it's a mapping. Or the other way around? Grahame
