Hi,
I was sleeping (hum, working !) while you talked of things in my domain.
In Odyssee, I choosed to work very close from langage : we built the Lexique
(35 000 terms) as *doctors words*, and we express documents as trees of
Lexique's terms. Trees are *doctors sentences*.
I think SNOMED approach, with a hierarchical coding system, is good for a
coding system, but not good for a description system.
In a description system, such as Odysse, the semantic network is outside
term list.
I think that the reason why Odyssee works is that we very clearly
distinguish description from classification.
Philippe
Odyssee Project
www.nautilus-info.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 4:46 PM
Subject: RE: Naming, was RE: Gehr and CEN
> Andrew,
> We are talking about two different types of thing. You describe a simple
> data model used for data collection, while the big debate is about how to
> provide unambiguous identifiers for attribute values such as diagnoses,
> surgical operations and medication, in such a way that information about
> these can be processed in both simple ways (e.g. to count open heart
> operations) and in complex ways (e.g in clinical decision-making protocols
> for managing patients with heart problems).
>
> To answer the question that I posed to Thomas, I think that for real
> systems, terminology deals with the identification of concepts as
attribute
> values, not with the identification of objects (instances of classes),
which
> is a different but related problem.
>
> To use a tree analogy. Terminology deals with the leaves, (a leaf is
> something at the end of the hierarchy that has no children), not with the
> root, trunk, boughs and branches (but the catch is that every tree, root,
> bough and branch can also be thought of as a leaf, and this is where the
> analogy breaks down).
>
> Tim Benson
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew po-jung Ho [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 16 April 2001 14:49
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Naming, was RE: Gehr and CEN
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:01:26 Tim Benson wrote:
> > ...
> > >There has long been a debate between those who think that terminologies
> > >should be comprised of:
> > >1. Atoms and hence taking the view that most terms are compound
> > >2. Molecules (useful stable things)
> > >3. Combinations of molecules (such as an FBC)
> > >
> > >Personally, I find the molecular approach the most straight
> > forward. Where
> > >do you stand?
> >
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > Great question!
> >
> > In the OIO system, the smallest unit is an "item" on a form. An
> > item is associated with an "itemtype" that constraints the "item"
> > to a specific "action" over a response set. For example, the item
> > 'sex of patient' can be of the itemtype 'sex', which has action
> > 'pickone' over the response set 'male,female'.
> >
> > I think this is at the #2:"molecular" level.
> >
> > The level above the item is "form". A form can contain arbitrary
> > number of items. That would be at level #3 in your scheme above.
> > This is the extend of our current implementation.
> >
> > I have alluded to a level above "form" in some of my messages
> > before. That would be "package of forms". I suppose it would be
> > level #4, "three dimensional machines" that are made from
> > "Combinations of molecules" :-). It will add workflow modeling
> > which is a good analogy for machines.
> >
> > >If we use archetypes or templates (and I am afraid I still
> > >have not fully grasped the difference) we still have the problem
> > of naming
> > >them.
> >
> > In the OIO system, naming is currently scoped at three levels:
> > "Items", "Forms", and "OIO Library".
> >
> > Items within any form can be arbitrarily named by their creator.
> > For a Form residing on a particular OIO Server, the creator of
> > the form can name it anything he/she wants as long as it does not
> > collide with an existing form on that OIO Server.
> >
> > If the form will be shared across different OIO Servers through
> > the OIO Library, then it must not collide with any existing form
> > in any of the OIO Libraries. This collision checking is done when
> > the form is being uploaded to an OIO Library. If there is a
> > collision, then the submitter of the form can rename the form.
> >
> > This is how naming is done in the OIO system. I look forward to
> > feedback on the merits/problems that this approach entails and
> > wonder how this differs from GEHR and other systems.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Andrew
> > ---
> > Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
> > OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes
> > www.TxOutcome.Org
> > Assistant Clinical Professor
> > Department of Psychiatry, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center
> > University of California, Los Angeles
> >
> >
> > Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora
> > Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com
> >
