Thomas, read below.
Gerard -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, arts Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252 544896 M: +31 654 792800 On 22-aug-2005, at 13:07, Thomas Beale wrote: > ah, well, you know my view on that! I beieve that basic categories > such as Observation, Evaluation, Instruction and Act belong in the > reference model, for two reasons: > a) it proves possible to devise formal models of such concepts > which work for all possible specific types of the same concept. > This is proven by building archeytpes. For example, no matter what > kind of clinical observation we model with an archetype, the > openEHR Observation concept still works. In some recent cases > described by Grahame Grieve and Sam Heard, there may be a small > change needed. This is how these classes can be evolved into solid, > invariant definitions which work for all clinical uses. The items you mention have to be part of a standard. We agree fully. The reference model or an other place is fine. As long as it is part of a standard. The problem is where? I reserved in my mind part 3 of EHRcom for this. > > b) we want to avoid the situation where archetype developers, or > even develpers of 'proto-archetypes' are arguing about what an > Observation, Evaluation etc are, and producing competing ancestor > archetypes of differing versions of the concept. This will not help > interoperability, and in any case, isn't even an interesting topic > for most clinical people. They want to model concepts like > "Haemaglobin A1c measurement", not "Observation". There is already > a place for those that do want to debate what an Observation is: > the reference model - they can always review that, and propose > changes. > > Sam and I have a paper under development which provides what we > think is a solid theoretical and practical basis for basic types in > the reference model, and provides a comprehensive typology of Entry > subtypes. I think this will make the matter of what 'proto- > archetypes' should and should not be used for clearer. Looking forward to an early draft. It will get my full attention. GF -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20050822/261aed1e/attachment.html>
