Gunnar Klein gunnar at klein.se
Sun Aug 26 07:41:32 EDT 2012

Dear Gerard,

Hope to see you in Pisa tomorrow-
Many things going on in parallel but I would like to attend the 1306 
session. Can you add me to a list?



On 22.08.2012 10:00, Gerard Freriks wrote:
> Have 'all' sit together?
> 'All' never write one good novel.
> 'All' do not invent E=MC2
> 'All' do not design and fill a coding system such as SNOMED with all 
> the codes
> 'All' will use semantic interoperability artefacts such as SNOMED
> 'All' by using it will validate and maintain the codes in for example 
> 'All' will not design the machinery behind SNOMED with which the 
> SNOMED lemma's are defined
> 'All' will use semantic interoperability artefacts such as Archetypes
> 'All' by using it will validate and maintain the archetypes
> 'All' will not design the machinery behind Archetypes with which the 
> Archetypes are defined  and standardised.
> Those that are not-'All' in the standardisation world must be aware 
> that healthcare is using fuzzy words as 'Diagnosis'.
> And that when we produce semantic interoperability artefacts we have 
> to cater to the healthcare world that is using these fuzzy words.
> But when we - in our machinery- do not define words/concepts in a 
> rigorous way, we never get generic semantic interoperability.
> Inside our machinery we had better use new words,  one new one for 
> each aspect that is associated with the inflated word 'Diagnosis'.
> It is the opinion of the EN13606 Association that the concepts as used 
> and defined by System of Concepts for Continuity of Care (ContSys) 
> defines these new words that we can (must) use inside our machinery.
> 'All' in the world can make archetypes to their hearts delight and use 
> their own 'slang' or dialect, as long as we -inside the artefact- use 
> the ContSys terms that are not fuzzy.
> As long as each user is making artefacts for his own local domain, 
> precise and generally shared definitions are not important.
> Slowly in the standards world we start to think on how to create a 
> wider more generic semantic interoperability instead of catering for 
> the small closed domains, that we were/are doing until now.
> In this context my words must be interpreted.
> Gerard Freriks
> +31 620347088
> gfrer at luna.nl <mailto:gfrer at luna.nl>
> On 21 Aug 2012, at 20:50, Stefan Sauermann wrote:
>> Hello!
>> If you want to be interoperable to "the rest of the world", you will 
>> have to sit together with all of them, agree on the information you 
>> want to share in which situation, on how it is packed for 
>> communication and write this up in an agreement.
>> Before that day, there will be no safe interoperability without human 
>> brains checking each exchange thoroughly, asking back in case of doubt.
>> There will only be interoperability with those who agreed beforehand.
>> Hope this helps, greetings from Vienna,
>> Stefan
>> --
>> Stefan Sauermann
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120826/b783453b/attachment.html>

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list