# SV: \[SPAM\] - Re: SubjectOfInvestigation - Bayesian Filter detected spam

**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/sv-spam-re-subjectofinvestigation-bayesian-filter-detected-spam/14496
**Category:** Technical (archive)
**Created:** [24 May 2005 22:35 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/sv-spam-re-subjectofinvestigation-bayesian-filter-detected-spam/14496 "2005-05-24T22:35:20Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/thomas.beale/32/35_2.png) [@thomas.beale](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/thomas.beale)
#### Post date: [4 June 2005 19:09 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/sv-spam-re-subjectofinvestigation-bayesian-filter-detected-spam/14496/21 "2005-06-04T19:09:45Z")

</div>

Bigpond wrote:

> Not necessarily - it is the 'stuff' that surrounds information that gives  
> meaning. Reduce too far and information loses its context and is at risk of  
> being meaningless information - a blood pressure of 120/80 is meaningless  
> unless context is supplied? Ape, human, earthworm about to explode!

This is one of the reasons openEHR has a well-defined model for the OBSERVATION subtype of ENTRY: you don't just record the data, you record the 'state' (of the organism), and also of course which organism (self, foetus, donor person), along with other information.

> To portray a human in digital form will require massively increased metadata  
> and context to relay what might have taken a 2 second glance from an  
> experienced clinician eg jaundice, death, fractured hip.

well, not massively increased - in fact it is not that much, it is just very carefully designed.

- thomas beale

[Previous page](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/sv-spam-re-subjectofinvestigation-bayesian-filter-detected-spam/14496.md?page=1)