Dario Liberman wrote:
>Well, > >In this case, I recommend to add a kind of actor, that may be de aggregation >of other actors. The administrator may decide which capabilities or roles >this new actor may have, since it doesn't necessarily need to have anything >in common with the aggregation of the capabilities of each of the actors it >aggregates. > I have added this to a list of change requests, but there is more thinking to be done - we may need to differentiate between workgroups which exist in and of themselves, e.g. cardiology team (?), versus groups which are formed around a patient, e.g. a "diabetic care team", which is a particualr grouping of people likely to exist only for a particular patient (i.e. they are not constituted as any formal team). Would the latter be identified as a group? Where? We have the concept of PARTY, ACTOR etc in the demographic model for things which exist regardless of context, and PARTICIPATION for context-specific participations of PARTYs in activities around the patient. - thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
