Gerard Freriks wrote: > 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.
Don't forget the new work item - the Archetype Knowledge Framework. In this there is the 'Domain Base Concept Model' - it is an agreed UML model on which to base interoperable archetypes. We believe it will look a lot like openEHR, but my most recent analysis is that it won't be the same; openEHR is slightly deficient in places. The needs of the Danish G-EPJ would also be directly addressed. - thomas > >> >> 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 -- ___________________________________________________________________________________ CTO Ocean Informatics (http://www.OceanInformatics.biz) Research Fellow, University College London (http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk) Chair Architectural Review Board, openEHR (http://www.openEHR.org) - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
