Dear William, It is nice to see a balanced approach to the problem of plug-and-play semantic interoperability that Archetypes and Template will bring about.
As far as I can see is the Reference Model provided by CEN/tc251 in EN13606 an openEHR a stable, well researched, developed and complete specification to be implemented in EHR-systems. I have some founded doubts about the stability of the HL7v3 RIM as reference model, as several papers and debates indicate. I fail completely to see the problems you mention with CEN/tc251 EN13606 and openEHR archetypes. So I'm (and many more will be) very curious to see an example. The experiences so far at TNO in the Netherlands have not given any indication of the type of problems you mentioned. On the contrary. Archetypes bind coding systems, and their codes, tightly to clinical concepts used in a defined context. That is the essential purpose (requirement) for archetypes that they have these characteristics. Greetings, Gerard -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, arts Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252 544896 M: +31 653 108732 On 13-sep-2006, at 22:02, Williamtfgoossen at cs.com wrote: > 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). > > Hope this helps, > > > dr. William Goossen > co- chair HL7 v3 patient care TC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060914/ef6f94c6/attachment.html>
