PISA

Gerard Freriks gfrer at luna.nl
Sun Aug 26 08:05:39 EDT 2012


When and where
I am at the function this afternoon


Sent from my iPhone

On 26 aug. 2012, at 13:41, Gunnar Klein <gunnar at klein.se> wrote:

> 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?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Gunnar
> 
> 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 SNOMED 
>> '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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d8e67a53/attachment.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list