> From: "Mike Mair" <mikemair at es.co.nz> > I am still not convinced that it is an EHR structure that has to be shared > for meaningful communication. Both aspects of interoperabiliy, functional > and semantic, can be served without sharing an EHR structure.
Mike - I agree with you here. Yes, interoperability depends on using a common architecture for the information objects which are exchanged, but this architecture can and should be both technology and domain independent. Modern software development practice (e.g. UP) suggests that we distinguish between specifications for requirements, design and implementation. Requirements specifications are domain specific (use case and business information models), Design specifications are ideally a realisation of the requirements using a domain independent and technology independent architecture; and Implementation is a technology specific realisation of the design. A domain independent reference architecture (such as the HL7 RIM) enables reuse across domains, while technology independence enables implementation across channels and is more future-proof. In my view, work on EHR standards should focus most attention on use case and business information models, which is where the EHR-specific complexity lies. The different use cases for EHRs can be realised using an interoperability architecture (such as the RIM) and implemented using a variety of technologies and channels (browsers, PDAs etc). One of our most common mistakes is to start from the technology and work backwards. This is especially hard to resist when you have already committed to using a particular technology! However, standards must be technology neutral. Tim -- Tim Benson Abies Ltd, 24 Carlingford Road, London NW3 1RX, UK +44 (0) 20 7431 6428, tb at abies.co.uk - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
