The main difference architecturally is that there in openEHR there is a reference model from which software and systems can be built. Archetypes and templates simply designate legal configurations of instances of the reference model. In HL7, the data are instances of schemas that are progressively refined from the RIM. In recent discussions with the designers, they claim that the theory of DIMs, RMIMs etc is based on "relational projections" on the RIM (i.e. that's the basis of attribute "removal"). Anyway, the end result is a schema per message.
Williamtfgoossen at cs.com wrote: > > > on the detailed level the archetypes in CEN 13606 and in HL7 v3 the > templates and R-MIMs for specific care statements, cover the smallest > molecules of clinical data. > examples of the latter can be found at www.zorginformatiemodel.nl you can see the openEHR archetypes at http://svn.openehr.org/knowledge/archetypes/dev/index.html > > A problem with the archetype approach (see the definition of this in > open EHR and 13606) is that it does not address the clinical > vocabulary which is included in HL7 v3 R-MIM approaches and > it does not tackle the clinical knowledge base that explains why some > data have to fit together and why a relationship has to be kept. (E.g. > for scientific instruments and scales). this is a problem I was unaware of William, can you elaborate with an example? - thomas
