Hi Adam, On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 11:55 +0100, Adam Flinton wrote: > > Stepping outside of well supported standards increases maintenance > requirements much much more. >
Well, I am not certain I would say much much more but in any case there are reasons why new standards are developed. > Heck why not write your ADL handling etc in PICK ? > You might find it hard to get Dell et all to support Pick on your choice > of hardware so why not try & build your own hardware with Pick optimised > chips while you're at it? > I assume you meant to surround this with sarcasm tags. > If you want to write your very own persistence mechanism/db I cannot but > admire your ambition but I would caution wrt expecting others wishing to > use it vs spending a bit more on hardware. > This wasn't the subject. I used the SQL database use as an analogy. I don't need to create my own (even if I could) object databases prove themselves very useful in implementation. > > How this applies to healthcare is that healthcare information must > > contain truth. That truth is fully dependent on the complete context of > > where, when and how it was recorded. This context needs to be > > understood in all spatial and temporal instances where this information > > is or may need to be used. > An obvious response would be that Heisenberg would argue with the above. Well, I am not a quantum physicist and would not argue with him in that domain of course. However, a lot has changed in information processing since he passed away in 1976. I would venture to guess that he might have made some adjustments to his uncertainty principle in the process. There is certainly a great deal of vagueness in healthcare information and the ARB has had MANY discussions about handling these situations. But I still maintain that vagueness nor uncertainty negates the expected truth value of healthcare information. The truth of healthcare information exists in the context of which it is collected. It may later proved to be incorrect but if the complete context of the information is known, it will be understood by the receiver. An interesting subject indeed but we are drifting off the subject to some extent. :-) > However the whole point of an object model (as opposed to an object > implementation) is that it is implementation neutral. > True. But the implementation must faithfully represent the semantics of the model or it isn't an implementation. > > "As part of its commitment to OHT, NHS Connecting for Health has > contributed an XML processing engine" I look forward to your work be proven in implementations. I think it COULD be wonderful to use XML. > > > > [NOTE] You will also need to address the issues that Thomas Beale just > > presented, in the referenced thread, regarding the real world as well. > > > > > I have done so. I agree with your format vs. design comments there. But, your examples lead me to believe that you are still focusing on sending messages with limited context and have not considered implications regarding storage and retrieval of healthcare information for decision support, public health analysis, etc. I look forward to continued to discussions/education on your XML progress. Now back to our regularly scheduled work! ;-) Cheers, Tim -------------- 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/20080418/d79d2bcb/attachment.asc>
