My approach would is in synch with Sebastian - ideally one maximum data set of all content for one pap archetype, from any source or standard, then constrained in a template for Bethesda's purposes, NHS' needs etc. Then the data has maximal interoperability and queryability.
In this case you wouldn't need multiple inheritance - I think the key is in the 'art' of the design of the initial and maximal pap archetype. Heather >-----Original Message----- >From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical- >bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Garde >Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2007 8:46 AM >To: For openEHR technical discussions >Subject: RE: Multiple parents and max number of nested specialized archetypes? > >Hi, > >I also think we should avoid multiple inheritance - it is complex enough >the way it is - from a tooling as well as from an archetype design point >of view. We don't need to make it complicated in addition to complex. > >Like Erik, I don't know the details of these two archetypes, but I think >a better design than using multiple inheritance would be to >- use a common base archetype for both. Here everything that the two >archetypes have in common (even if it is a little bit more generic than >it would be when only considering one of them) can be located. And also >everything that doesn't largely overlap can be located as optional items >- even if it doesn't have any relevance to the NHS and or Bethesda. >- If really necessary specialise this base archetype for the >environment, but preferably use templates to achieve this (strip out >unnecessary items in your environment, further constrain the archetype >etc.) > >Cheers >Sebastian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Erik Sundvall [mailto:erisu at imt.liu.se] >> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2007 5:04 PM >> To: For openEHR technical discussions >> Subject: Re: Multiple parents and max number of nested specialized >> archetypes? >> >> Hi! >> >> Interesting discussion. I'm hope we can avoid multiple inheritance in >> archetype specialisation. It will be interesting to see how far one >> can get just using single inheritance and inclusion (clusters etc). >> >> On 10/17/07, Koray Atalag <atalagk at yahoo.com> wrote: >> >There are now two alternative archetypes, one designed for NHS by >Ocean >> which >> > is already a specialization of general histology archetype and the >other >> archetype >> > I am currently modeling, Bethesda System 2001. I have not >experimented >> yet if >> > my archetype can be redesigned as a specialization of NHS archetype >> (PAP) >> > or be a an alternative archetype for the same purpose possibly for >use >> at a different >> > setting. In the case of having two separate alternative archetypes, >I >> thought of >> > having a further specialized archetype which conforms to both >parents. I >> think >> > this is possible and useful. >> >> What is different and what is in common in the two 'smear' archetype >> approaches (Bethesda v.s. NHS)? Sorry if this is a stupid question >> coming from a non-clinician. >> >> Does the reasoning in the paper... >> >http://www.openehr.org/publications/archetypes/templates_and_archetypes_ >he >> ard_et_al.pdf >> ...regarding organisational vs ontological models apply to this or are >> the differences of another nature? >> >> Can one share important sub-parts without sharing view on process and >> structure. If so, will the information entered using the two different >> archetypes be computable in a similar way for e.g. decision support >> systems. >> >> Perhaps the best will be to agree on one archetype in this case if >> possible, but I assume similar cases will surface again. From a >> technical perspective it is interesting to discuss how far one can get >> in reaching clinical consensus in 'ontological' sub parts. Splitting >> things up in too many small 'consensus pieces' without sharing >> encompassing structure is also likely to have negative impact on >> semantic interoperability. >> >> Best regards, >> Erik Sundvall >> erisu at imt.liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: >+46-13-227579 >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > >_______________________________________________ >openEHR-technical mailing list >openEHR-technical at openehr.org >http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > >__________ NOD32 2599 (20071017) Information __________ > >This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >http://www.eset.com
