Dear William, Either the brave Dutch are stupid or very clever to become almost the only nations on this earth to vote negative on: the CEN/tc251 EN13606 EHRcom and HISA standards.
I know one thing for certain. Based on the openEHR specification in TNO project we have one working implementation from Sweden using Java and one from Australia using .Net. And besides openEHR and CEN/tc251 are based on several working implementations produced in many European projects. Not only the theoretic foundation is in order, the implementations are there, and they work as claimed. It can be proved this solutions are scalable. I know that there are parties that started to implement HL7v3 messages on a large scale and encountered scalability problems. There parties are changing there point of view and are moving towards CEN/tc251 EHR related standards. To read recently in a HL7 e-mail list a discussion dealing with the definitions used in HL7 with respect to several of the founding classes of the RIM (Entity and Act) and the confusion in the documentation is a tell tale example of only one of the serious problems in the HL7 community. And all this after 10 years of work and the production of tons of documentation that can not be printed. You can reverse any statement I make. You can decide not to believe any statement I make, as you and several of my country fellow man did when we were discussing EN13606 EHRcom, lets see how history will prove who is right and who is wrong. So we stop this debate and see how things evolve in time. In the end what matters is, not only that the healthcare sector is able to express what they want, but can it Plug-and-Play be implemented without reprogramming. And then I'm confident that openEHR and CEN/tc251 EHRcom plus HISA will provide just this, because it was in our requirements, also, from the start. I agree. There is only one patient, with one problem that needs our unified attention and devotion. So we have to co-operate. But we have to continue to discuss and provide arguments and listen to the arguments given. Instead of attacking persons, as I have been able to observe several times it to happen in the Netherlands. Lets start the real debate. Patients and healthcare providers need real solutions that empower them. Gerard -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, arts Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252 544896 M: +31 653 108732 On 15-sep-2006, at 19:08, Williamtfgoossen at cs.com wrote: > > This is reversable: > > > When the world starts to experience the multitude of difficuties > with the OpenEHR and CEN 13606 and archetype development method > what will we do? > > Will we start to patch up something that has intrinsic problems? > > Do you remember the recent discussions on the OpenEHR list. > > My conclusion was that they don't know the definitions of the major > classes of the RIM and other technicalities. > > Luckily OpenEHR / 13606 is not deployed that widely, so there are > not much legacy systems to reckon with? > > Or will we start from a more sound starting point. One that is an > International standard and is on its way to become an ISO standard > as well? > > > Of course this reversion is just to point to the fact that we are > apparently back in our corners and have this dispute that is > nonsence and not contributing. > > I am the last to tell that HL7 v3 is perfect, but will be one of > the firsts to tell it is working. > > I am the last to believe OpenEHR / 13606 is perfect, and wait till > I see it work in real practice. > > > In the meantime, we have harmonized and differences (few) and > commonalties (biljons) have been determined. > In the meantime, we will start working with existing tools, set > requirements and improve the tools. > > I do not care where the tools come from, I care what they can do > for the very difficult work of entering, storing and exchanging > information about patients and care in a intelligent, semantic > interoperable way. > > I do like HL7 v3 D-MIMs because I see several good working EHR > systems based on this. To me, beside philosophical problems > (fundamental to limits in human thinking), and technical > approaches, it really does not make a difference: make the clinical > materials available electronically and make clinicians not have to > worry about the technology and transformations behind. > > Any discussion in favour of one and against another approach is > going back to the trenches of WW1 where we would like to work > towards the future. > > William -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060915/5e169900/attachment.html>
