On Thursday 11 May 2006 12:08, Andrew Patterson wrote: > > HL7 V3 goes a long way to eliminating variability, but this is no > > small task and real implementations are sparse. > > See this is where I think the disconnect between proponents > of HL7 and I are.. > > I have spent the last 2 weeks "outputting" HL7v3 from a > clinical system and from my point of view the specs > go nowhere near eliminating variability - I was left > with about 50 "choices" as to how the HL7 would be structured > (is a 'progress note' an observation and how should it be coded - > if I have a set of 'allergy' observations, where do I put them in a > patient record and how do I distinguish them from other observations). > So here I am, making choices as a technical person that I > don't feel at all comfortable making. I don't want to make those
The problem is generalisation. HL7 is aiming at being as general as possible. In extremis, generalisation would mean "simply" re-implementing a general purpose language like English. HL7 adds a little structure to the ambiguity, but it doesn't solve the problem. In our domain, we don't need overly generalized messaging. We have a very limited scope that really matters. Messaging for limited scopes would be very easy and quick to implement - alas, we are too focussed on overly generalizing. OpenEHR has the better approach IMHO - but my personal preference would be even more domain specific (and thus simpler) Horst _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
