Tim Benson wrote:
>Hi Tom, >I do not know which HL7 TCs and SIGs should host this debate. It is not >humanly possible to follow everything, but I would have thought that EHR and >MnM should also have a point of view. > >My thrust all along has been to make sure that we really understand what are >the specific requirements of each use case, which is less controversial than >asking what is the set of all possible requirements. > it is, and it is the right thing to do when building a system. But when building a standard, or a product, or something which is clearly going to have application outside the situations which can possibly be thought of when it is being written, things are somewhat different - we cannot just stick to software-engineering as usual. This is why the GEHR/openEHR work uses a 2-level framework rather than the typical single-level one, which is very limited and does not behave well in time. That said, I am all for finding use cases to justify the inclusion of things, and avoiding unncessary optionality - within an overall framework which provides for future-proofing. - thomas - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
