HI, Via the Url a PDF/presentation with some calculations. No message standard, any message standard and the two-level-model paradigm, are compared. http://tinyurl.com/26hlch
Gerard On Feb 6, 2008, at 9:28 PM, Sam Heard wrote: > Hi Koray > > I think we will have to come up with some metrics that are relevant > as it has not been done before in the domain space. Clearly > modelling at two levels is a common approach - relational databases > model the idea of tables with rows and columns, linking keys, data > types and indexes. The domain information is expressed in terms of > these rows and columns. Many systems driven on metadata do the same > thing. What is new about openEHR is a generic approach to allow any > base model to be constrained through the use of ADL. The result is > that the base model can reflect the general business rules and the > fixed information constructs - the archetypes the domain knowledge > and how it is represented in terms of the base model. The approach > relies only on getting sufficient expressivity at the base level to > make the split efficient and safe. > > The comparison in health care at present is with HL7 version 3. This > has a base model (RIM) from which a new model, an RMIM, is > constructed (level 2). The difference is that RMIMs are constructed > with alterations to the RIM classes (which are renamed). So we now > have a new class based on a pattern. The semantics of the RMIM is a > mixture of RIM and RMIM and difficult to untangle. CDA is using > templates in the same way as openEHR uses archetypes - to express > some domain content. As CDA is already committed to XML, the means > of further constraint is limited - hence the use of schematron and > other devices. > > I guess the first metric that we could consider is the speed at > which domain concepts can be modelled and the level of human > intervention for documentation and maintenance. The UK NHS, which > has the most experience of both, has found openEHR far more > efficient to use than MIF template constraints on HL7 CDA. Vendors > are cautious and have little experience of openEHR directly as yet. > > Clearly archetypes are of great use in systems that use the openEHR > Framework and allow use of operability constraints out of the box. > What about other vendor systems? Well, Ocean tools are being used to > produce inputs for vendors which are formal specifications of data > to be stored and communicated. The ability to reuse these artefacts > for many purposes - queries, transformations, display and data entry > provides another metric that is of use. > > We will need some large systems built on openEHR and traditional > approaches to compare in the future. For the moment, just having > clinical specifications that are computable is the main influence on > choosing openEHR - or starting from scratch as new vendors see the > benefits (or not). > > Cheers, Sam > > > > Koray Atalag wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I want to learn how we can formally/objectively prove that Archetype >> based dual level development formalism alleviates problems of >> interoperability and maintainability. I was wondering if someone >> did or >> know of any such study which applies formal validation methods? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Koray Atalag, MD, Ph.D. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >> >> >> > > -- > <OceanC_small.png> Dr Sam Heard > Chief Executive Officer > Ocean Informatics > Director, openEHR Foundation > Senior Visiting Research Fellow, University College London > Aus: +61 4 1783 8808 > UK: +44 77 9871 0980 > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, MD Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252544896 M: +31 620347088 E: gfrer at luna.nl Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20080207/9dd4321d/attachment.html>
