2006/11/13, Thomas Beale <Thomas.Beale at oceaninformatics.biz>: > > Mattias Forss wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I knew that. There seems to be some options when archetypes need > > to reference the same kind of information to be entered in an EHR, e.g > > . slots, specialisations, etc. Some EHR data should probably be > > limited to be created in only one archetype if it's concerning the > > same finding context in a domain. In addition, if data spreads over > > several areas of findings, single nodes from archetypes should > > probably not be reused and instead they should exist in several > > archetypes since finding procedures may change in certain domains and > > make the originally referenced nodes incompatible. > this is our experience so far, and we have to learn (as technical > people) to really trust the experience of clinical people, not think we > know too much about real archetypes. The vision of archetypes is really > about empowering domain users, and sometimes it can feel odd to be told > we engineers don't quite know what we are talking about. I see it as a > sign of a successful future for information systems development.
I totally agree with this. Mattias - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20061113/01487297/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
