On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 16:10 +0100, Roger Erens wrote: > > > Thanks for explaining your view, Thomas. > > Doesn't this model division of the problem domain into two concepts just > mean that you're shifting the bulk of development and maintenance > complexity/costs from first order concept level to the second order > concept level? The reality of the problem domain _will_ change over > time, and must be reflected in software somewhere, somehow.
Hi Roger, DISCLAIMER: I do not, nor do I have any intention of speaking for anyone but myself. In many ways you are EXACTLY correct in that we (the plural openEHR Foundation we) are shifting the complexity to the second level. That *really* is the point. Our (my) point is to develop software applications that can deal with the changing knowledge model of healthcare. I have no intention of being the domain expert. I could really "care less" (as we say in the US) whether it is a podiatrist or a cardiologist that wants to commit "information" to my application. I MUST be able to consume and manage that information. Their responsibility is to create archetypes that represent their knowledge *AND* fit into the information management model that we make available for them. So, while we may be shifting a bit of the work (which is sharable via openly available archetypes) we are also saying that if you create a clinical application specific to cardiology or podiatry, the patient centric PHR/EMR/EHR can still understand that information, "in context"; to how it was created. Yep, it's a shift. Hopefully it is a shift that makes sense to those that have seen the real world issues of previous healthcare information systems. Cheers, Tim -- Timothy Cook, MSc Health Informatics Research & Development Services http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook
