Tom Beale wrote: > 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.
Well here I disagree. It is always the case that something designed to do a set of well specified jobs well, will always find other valuable uses. > 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. I am all in favour of multilevel frameworks. You might like to check out the e-Service Development Framework at: http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents/eSDFprimerV1b.pdf This has a three level framework with a high level architecture, reusable elements and standards (which can be implemented). In another representation this is presented as the central three layer sandwich of a 5-layer framework with generic standards (such as UML, and XML) above the architecture and actual instantiations below the standards giving: - Generic standards (e.g XML) _ High level information architecture - Reusable elements - Standards - Instantiation Each of these 5 layers can be divided vertically into Requirements, Design and Technology Implementation, giving a matrix. 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
