On 02/04/2018 18:38, Philippe Ameline wrote:
Actually, I don't think that I use grammar in an unusual way. If I do
it technically, lets assume for the sake of the discussion that I am
really talking about a grammar, ie a set of rules that allows you to
interpret an arrangement of concepts as a discourse. Typically, a
dependency grammar is not just a tree representation, but a tree
representation where you take as a rule that the sons of an element
qualify this element. Since every natural language sentence can be
represented as a dependency grammar tree and vice versa, it is
possible to assert that a dependency grammar is a sufficient grammar.
Right - but the normal sense of 'grammar' is something that controls /
validates sentences made up of words so at least they have acceptable
structural forms, even if they say semantically nonsensical things. The
fils guides 'grammar' is supplying both levels - correct form (by
implication, due to /ordering/ of tree elements as you pass through
them) and valid semantics (due to the /content /of the tree elements,
thus preventing 'colon of stenosis' but allowing the reverse).
OpenEHR does this job using templated archetypes, and in more or less
the same way,. But I wouldn't call this a grammar - it is the underlying
Reference Model that provides the 'hard' rules of the statement form.
In both cases the 'trees' could be considered models of 'possible things
to say' - they thus represent models of epistemic knowledge, which is to
say knowledge about individual instances, obtained or created in the
clinical process.
In both cases, ontology (or terminology) provides the meaning of any
mentioned element.
My point is that you have an ontology (say a terminology with terms
grouped as concepts and concepts interrelated in a semantic network)
and a true grammar, then there is no need for a "structural
terminology"... one of the reason being that (part of) this
terminology can find its place in the ontology.
well maybe 'structural terminology' is a bad term; what I am really
talking about is /models of possible content/ (possible utterances).
The first advantage is that practitioners can freely "tell whatever
they want" in a structured way. For example using a tree interface
with, for example, only the first elements already in place (say
"encounter" as tree root and SOAP entries as sons). But it doesn't
seem as the best interface for fully deterministic cases and
archetypes (in their most basic meaning, ie flexible information
schemas) are fit. Fil guides are used "in-between", as a way to help
users fill trees with proposals of the kind "from the path you are
currently located, you may benefit from this set of sons to carry your
description one step further". I may elaborate on this.
yes, there is no doubt that the way you engineered /fils guides/
achieves this very well, and we have things to learn in terms of
bridging the gap between linguistic expression and structural expression
- for now, openEHR has no 'system' to do the former, it is just done /ad
hoc/ by those who want it.
- 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
