In article <[log in to unmask]>, Peter Johnson
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>My area of interest in this is to aid decision support systems - this means
>using the EMR for a task which the user did not have in mind (most likely)
>when he recorded the entry. The reason why I still pursue this goal, is that
>there are workers (only a few, I admit) in AI who believe that it is
>possible to get to the holy grail of task independent knowledge, and a great
>many who believe it is possible to get close to this, if not actually reach
>it. What we should be able to achieve is a great improvement on the current
>situation. That may be enough to achieve what we want. But I'm sure the use
>of SGML per se isn't going to solve these problems.
Is there not a core of 'informatics' type problems that is largely
independent of the technology? Surely we should be using the various
tech. tools that become available appropriately to help solve these
problems, and also build on the lessons we have learned or are currently
learning. As a clinician user rather than a technician or an academic
informatician I believe that Peter's comments about 'task independent
knowledge' are highly relevant. This has as much to do with human
knowledge, skills and attitudes as it has to do with the technology.
When you actually try to tackle the problems of data interchange or
information sharing - even using crude (?) tools like EDIFACT - this
becomes blindingly obvious. The same kinds of problems will still go on
going on whether you opt for ASTM, SGML, HTML etc. I cannot see how
these issues can be bypassed, assuming that it continues to be desirable
for human patients to continue to be treated by human health care
professionals. There is a lot of work to be done to get HCPs to
understand and agree what they want to convey to each other, why and how
- what ever the means of communication
--
John Williams
Email: [log in to unmask]
Fax: 01483 440928
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|