Machine Learning , some thoughts
a.anastasiou at swansea.ac.uk
Wed Jun 27 09:14:32 EDT 2018
Not as “fact”, it is probably how I expressed it, this is my understanding so far and I would not mind it being corrected if wrong.
>It is an archetype, it is written in ADL following the ADL-syntax, it is processable by AOM, it consists of datatypes from the reference model.
That is the first level. Archetypes re-use RM types and they in turn are used to define more complex structures. So, the Archetype becomes a type itself.
You cannot specialise the Blood Pressure Archetype to express anything other than blood pressure as far as I am aware.
>For example, all those cluster archetypes, they cannot be added in an composition, they are to add to an entry archetype, which at that point has a slot as container.
My understanding is that this specifies a “Composed Of” type of relationship with Archetypes that should be descending from a specific type. At that point, you don’t
really care what that archetype will be defining, but you do specify that whatever is attached to that slot should be bearing a specific type of information (conceptually).
That is not a container.
I do not see any major disagreement (except maybe difference in specific concepts) here. You can construct N different isolated archetypes for all the information
produced by new devices. Ultimately, you will still have to compose them into a larger structure by bunching together the similar concepts. That would be a bottom up design.
Unless a machine can understand which concepts are supposed to be bunched together we will still need humans in the loop.
Maybe what you propose can be expressed using the functionality of Archetypes but that would be more of a “hack” (in a positive sense) rather than intentional use (?).
All the best
From: openEHR-clinical <openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org> On Behalf Of Bert Verhees
Sent: 27 June 2018 13:52
To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org
Subject: Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts
Thanks for your reply, Anastasiou,
I disagree with some opinions you express as fact.
On 27-06-18 14:21, Anastasiou A. wrote:
I think that this is the bit that causes the “friction” ☺
“Archetype” is not a “value”. It is a type.
It is an archetype, it is written in ADL following the ADL-syntax, it is processable by AOM, it consists of datatypes from the reference model.
It has ontology, it can have coding, it has a creator, and it can fit in an archetype slot. Sometimes it is more data-points, closely related.
Archetypes help you think conceptually about the domain. They are not supposed to be fancy containers (That’s what Templates are for ☺ ).
That is another discussion, but I see in CKM archetypes which are container archetypes. I don't see any problem in that, container archetypes can cause modularity, and flexibility in datastorage. For example, all those cluster archetypes, they cannot be added in an composition, they are to add to an entry archetype, which at that point has a slot as container.
Templates have another function, they are for a specific purpose which is outside the boundaries of OpenEhr-datastorage purposes, for example, creating messages, creating screens, etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openEHR-clinical