On 14/03/2018 11:10, Philippe Ameline wrote:
because the structures take care of all data points, not just coded
ones. But your /fils guides/ are rather special - they do the same
thing, unlike an ordinary grammar, so it's not really an argument. In
fact I would say that today we could derive a computable
transformation from the trees <=> ADL2 archetypes.
Yes... it just means adding the ADL concepts inside the ontology.
we have some concepts inside the archetypes themselves, and bindings to
terminology. This is not as clean as your system, which has a very nice
vocabulary included, whereas we chose (rightly or wrongly) to try to
connect to Snomed, LOINC and all the other published terminologies out
there.
- thomas
--
Thomas Beale
Principal, Ars Semantica <http://www.arssemantica.com>
Consultant, ABD Team, Intermountain Healthcare
<https://intermountainhealthcare.org/>
Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation
<http://www.openehr.org>
Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society
<http://www.bcs.org/category/6044>
Health IT blog <http://wolandscat.net/> | Culture blog
<http://wolandsothercat.net/>
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
