On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 14:27 -0700, Tom Lincoln wrote: > Thanks for your reply... The situation is certainly more complex as > the HL7 Clinical Document Architecture XML framework clearly > demonstrates... Just picked the first and simplest examples at hand. > > Tom
[apologies for cross posting but I doubt it'll offend too many] Hi Tom (and all), This is certainly true. The CDA and the more constrained CCD demonstrate very effectively the difficulty in transferring health care information along with it's semantic context. This is of course the reason for the development of two level modeling and the maturation of over two decades work into the openEHR Reference Model and Archetypes as data descriptors. See: http://www.openehr.org I hope to (very soon now) introduce a query language based on openEHR archetypes that will also allow for a certain amount of "possibility and fuzzy" matching. This will allow the use of object database storage and retrieval based on a true data model. This will avoid the tragic mismatch and data fragmentation of object - relational mapping and the horror of SQL masquerading as a true relational model. The point is though, that the true "killer app" in health care must be based on a REAL health care data model. Cheers, -- Timothy Cook, MSc Health Informatics Consulting http://home.comcast.net/~tw_cook/ 01-904-322-8582 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20070320/814b37fc/attachment.asc> -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
