Thomas, yes, agree. But we need more ontologies informing archetypes, classifications and /terminologies about other topics such as defined in the ISO Continuity of Care standard, …
Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl Kattensingel 20 2801 CA Gouda the Netherlands > On 1 Mar 2018, at 16:24, Thomas Beale <thomas.be...@openehr.org> wrote: > > > Sorry - didn't mean to be cryptic. > BFO = basic formal ontology - probably best mainstream reference is the book, > see here on Amazon > <https://www.amazon.co.uk/Building-Ontologies-Basic-Formal-Ontology/dp/0262527812> > RO = relations ontology - an ontology of possible relationships between > upper-level biomedical entities, including part-of, develops-from etc. OBO > ref <http://obofoundry.org/ontology/ro.html>. > IAO = Information Artefact Ontology. OBO ref > <http://obofoundry.org/ontology/iao.html>. > > I'm not saying that the concrete representation of reference data has to be > an ontology (e.g. as produced by Protege), but reference information > ('knowledge') is unavoidably based on an ontological viewpoint in the same > way that the contents of SNOMED CT are (should be). Drug data for example > takes the form of facts about drugs such as constituents, interactions; units > information is /should be based on an ontology of measurement concepts (which > is not very well represented in OBO right now - as far as I can determine, > people think it should be in IAO, but I think that is incorrect. Practically, > UCUM serves pretty well.) > > - thomas
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
