On 29/08/2013 10:12, Daniel Karlsson wrote: > Gerard, Everyone, > > could you please *NOT* reuse existing terms like "open world" and > "closed world" with an already agreed specific meaning in a well-defined > context for your own purposes! > > On the topic of descriptive vs. prescriptive I believe that that is an > additional dimension in this discussion. I still want to have an answer > to the question of what to do with archetype nodes for which there are > no existing terminology correspondence. Should we ban those archetype > nodes or should we (over)inflate terminologies with imprecise content or > should we just accept that archetypes and terminology are different > artefact beasts with different properties and that we have to thread > carefully balancing terminology binding possibilities and specific use > case requirements? >
Hi Daniel, there is a third answer - the one actually in use. There is little/no economic benefit in coding most archetype nodes. So not being able to code them doesn't matter that much, at least for many years to come while there are almost no environments that could make use of the codes. The problem today might be what someone considers high value nodes that should be coded, that can't be - either because of a definitive lack of a code, or more commonly due to the inabiity of analysts to figure out which of the many approximately matching ones is the correct match (if any). I have no idea how big or small this problem is today. There is certainly no point banning archetype nodes that can't be coded, because that would prevent any archetype development (and going by Grahame's comments, any FHIR development). What I think is needed is a theory that identifies what/ when archetype nodes really need to be coded. Today the best we can come up with is that names of terminal nodes that might appear in queries, plus values of those nodes that have codable values, should be coded. - thomas
