On Tue May 22 00:15:04 GMT-400 2012, Renato Iannella < ri@semanticidentity.com> wrote: > > On 22 May 2012, at 10:05, Aaron Brown wrote: > > The schema wasn't designed with that use case in mind -- it's focused on > marking up public information on the web for search use cases, not for > coding or exchange of clinical data. It might be extensible to a version of > that use case, if complemented with requirements for use of well-defined > coding systems tied to external enumerations (like ICD or Snomed, RxNorm, > etc). But it'd probably be better to use a purpose-built representation for > clinical data transfer, like HL7 CDA / CCD or CCR, coupled with a > patient-readable form of the discharge notes; standards like these offer > greater precision in the specification of clinical data. > > > It would be useful to add this design constraint to the introduction (at > the moment it says "The scope of this schema is broad…") Sure. That comment was intended to be about the scope of entities covered, not the scope of use, as I had assumed that folks would be looking at this in the context of schema.org, which is about web markup. I'll clarify in my next set of updates. > And perhaps define MedicalEntity as disjoint from Person ;-) > Not sure I understand where the confusion is here...Person is a separate type under Thing, so they should be disjoint by definition. Thanks! --Aaron > > > Cheers... > Renato Iannella > Semantic Identity > http://semanticidentity.com > Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206 > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 13:21:29 UTC