Andrew Patterson wrote:
Maybe it's a good thing openehr hasn't been proliferated yet,
otherwise we'd be stuck with some basic flaws.
I think it's broad statements like this that tend to put peoples
noses out of joint - this morning you were decrying their lack of
professionalism because they hadn't done the basics of running
their schemas through a validator - only for it to be your translation
that was wrong. Now, because you disagree with a one
design decision (and you have presented an alternative that
is for all intensive purposes identical, only with fields moved
around), you are claiming that the whole effort has some
basic flaws. My impression of the openehr group is that they
are more than willing that accept good constructive
criticism - if you feel you have some insights into the base
data types you should feed it back to them.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
----------
The openEHR group run several mailing lists, with the openehr-technical
being the most active. Importantly Thomas Beale (openEHR architecture
chair) and Sam Heard (Ocean Informatics, Standards Oz EHR Working Group)
are quite active and very involved in the technical nuances of such an
EHR endeavour.
Subscribe below and drop them questions aplenty !
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
Further lists focus deal with openehr-implementers and openehr-clinical:
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
Andre.
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
