Bill Walton wrote:
>Second, as >a result of that, openEHR seems to allow more decoupling and simplification >of the application than Fileman by allowing an application to query the >server about the existence of content rather than requiring the application >to try to access content and then deal with the case where the access fails. > >Am I anywhere close? > I am ignorant of fileman (but interested to see comparisons posted here); what I can say that might be useful is that openEHR applications are very likely to be template driven, where a template is a particular combination of archetypes plus localisations like default values etc. An example template would be a diabetic review, an antenatal visit and so on. So if we consider archetypes as knowledge, then a fair part of the GUI does not need the knowledge hard-wired in - it is able to use separate knowledge artifacts, namely templates. Enough work has been done to show that this is possible, but not enough work has been done (IMO) to show how much of the GUI still needs to be custom built - because despite everything, GUIs are not just a reflection of domain knowledge structures, but are heavily dependent on user preferences, temporal usage patterns, relative priorities and so on. Querying the server can be done with the use of archetypes as a guiding mechanism. There are a few initial examples at the end of the "Shared Language for Archetypes - Part II" paper (available from home page of http://www.deepthought.com.au). - thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
