openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 64, Issue 6

GF gfrer at
Mon Jun 5 08:36:57 EDT 2017

Gerard   Freriks
+31 620347088
  gfrer at

Kattensingel  20
2801 CA Gouda
the Netherlands

> On 5 Jun 2017, at 10:48, William Goossen <wgoossen at> wrote:
> Hi Heather,
> the key difference is that the assessment scales have a scientific validation, leading to clinimetric data, often for populations, but e.g. Apgar and Barthell are also reliable for individual follow up measures.

But in essence it is a set of questions and answers plus a set of rules to aggregate the collected data.

> a simple question, answer, even with some total score, does usually not have such evidence base. I agree that in the data / semantic code representation in a detailed clinical model it is not different.

As you write yourself.

> Hence, also Grahame's nonsense comment on the value of semantic interoperability of such things. It is for user groups of stakeholders to determine the clinical and scientific merits of such instruments not a technical implementer.

Yes. Local players must decide what they need.
But there is an interoperability issue, as well.
It is very likely that for research many years  from now we need to be able to interpret the old data.
In other words we need interoperability over longer periods of time, or better interpretability over longer periods of time.

> vriendelijke groeten, with kind regards,
> dr. William Goossen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the openEHR-technical mailing list