At 10:46 AM -0400 4/21/08, Dan Russler wrote:
Peter and Vipul...See below...dan
Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
IMHO, codes don't represent classes in some information model. An
information model has classes like Observation, whose instances are
clinical statements made by some entity (person or machine). I
think information model is "meta" in the sense that its instances
are statements
[VK] This the reason I think theHL7 is a meta-model rather than an
Information Model. Of course this depends on the viewpoint you take
and the information architecture you adopt.
<dan> With apologies to Peter in case I misrepresented your SOA
presentation...Last week, Peter Elkin of Mayo Clinic delivered a
presentation where he called the HL7 RIM a "first order ontology"
because of the abstraction level of the RIM. He called the models
derived from the RIM, e.g. analytic models, patient care document
models like CDA, etc, "second order ontology" because they add a
layer of concreteness to the abstractions of the RIM, i.e. an object
with classCode of observation and moodCode of order becomes an
"observation order object" with neither a classCode nor a moodCode.
Finally, the coding systems themselves support the concreteness of a
"third order ontology." For example, the SNOMED concept becomes an
object itself without a code attribute, moodCode attribute, or
classCode attribute, e.g. a WBC order. />
AAArgh, can I plead that we do NOT use this terminology in this way?
The "first/second/higher-order" terminology already has a firmly
established and very precise use to refer to types of logic, and
hence of ontology languages. Just don't say 'order'. Use some other
word, please. Thanks.
Pat Hayes
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections
