>Eric Browne wrote: > >In order to more clearly discuss these concepts, it would be nice if >>someone could come up with a name for "instance of archetype" (perhaps >>something like "archeobject", or "EHRfactlet" or "EHRlet"), to cover the >>elements of an EHR transaction (diagnostic procedure, diagnosis, >>therapeutic procedure, adverse health events etc. ). >>Perhaps Thomas et al already have?
Thomas Beale answered : >I have to admit that I don't yet have a special term for this - usually I >jsut say something like "data conforming to archetype xxx" or so. >Actually, I don't think "archetype instance" is such a bad term. Maybe >"archetype exemplar". I'll have to think on it. Suggestions welcome... From my point of view, an Archetype is a model ; it may also be seen as a "data mold". Hence - back to the debate about ontologies and Archetypes - one can only speak, as Thomas said, of a description structure conforming to an Archetype. I think it is important to distinguish 2 functions for Archetypes : description validator and description mold. The function of description validator is easy to understand ; I can give an actual example of the function of data mold : The Odyssee project has been granted some funds from the french Ministry of research in order to investigate the domain of continuity of care. The key concept in that matter is to be able to manage the concept of "points of view" : how can we display a common set of datas in a way that is accurate for a GP, but also in a different way, accurate for a cardiologist, and in a third way accurate for a gastroenterologist, and so on. We plan to use Archetypes as "transformation rules" from a global description to specific descriptions. I hope Thomas didn't plan too much hollydays for years to come ;-) Philippe
