Hi Juanita, I would be honoured indeed :) Just a small remark I want to share with you all: After working in the field of clinical information systems (My own firm in Turkey established in 1996) I faced with the many problems we discuss here from firsthand and said enough, sold my shares and got back to academia. In all the projects and tenders we got, we in fact lost money due to changing requirements and a general lack of understanding in procurers and laws. I evaluated openSDE, Protege and some other propriety tools but then discovered openEHR in 2001 or beginning of 2002. I also did a very risky thing and based my Ph.D. research on this! Well, it took 7 years for me to finish it (!) I am happy now that I chose it and very anxious to conduct some quality research.
Friendly regards, -koray Juanita Fernando wrote: > Hiya Koray, > > It sounds like we may be able to collaborate in the future, which is > fabulous. I'll be in touch > > Cheers > > Juanita > > Koray Atalag wrote: > >> Hi Juanita and others, >> >> It would be a great research topic and I think one that is needed very >> badly from openEHR community. If I manage to find an appropriate >> research position, this would definitely fall within scope of my >> research as I already have necessary experience and data in endoscopy as >> explained in my thesis. I have been investigating this subject because >> of a paper in progress which summarizes my thesis work and I want to >> inform readers about other studies which claim Archetype bases two-level >> modelling is superior to classical one in terms of maintainability, >> interoperability and domain knowledge governance; preferably with >> objective formal methods. Of course it is hard considering that this is >> a new paradigm and tricky due to the nature of problem. What I saw is >> this: formal methods are negligibly scarce and current data is mostly >> coming from expert opinion. There is a very interesting whitepaper >> (2004) which explains why single level modelling fails in development >> and maintenance. It is not really very scientific(?) but you may find it >> useful anyways: >> >> A Practical Implementation of a Two Level Archetype Based Clinical Model >> http://www.meridianhi.com/IDME_Whitepaper.htm >> >> One last thing about HL7: I read that paper by Ceusters & Smith; it is >> interesting though but there is another paper as response from HL7 >> rounds and both seem to tell about facts from different perspectives. I >> feel that HL7 is over-criticized here and that this would not increase >> the value of this work for sure. I used v2.4 messages myself and I found >> it very useful like many. Simply their move with v3 to become a content >> standard apart from messaging which is then extended to be an EHR >> standard is not an elegant approach. Maybe we all criticize about this >> aspect, but then it results in a general dislike about whole HL7. And >> keep in mind that only time will show who will survive; think about >> (annoying) existence of cockroaches appearing many million years before >> elegant species in biologic evolution :D >> >> Best regards, >> >> -koray >> >> Juanita Fernando wrote: >> >> >>> Hiya, >>> I'm thinking of doing some post doc work in this area later on this >>> year. I thought you might find this reference useful too Koray: >>> >>> Smith B, Ceusters W. HL7 RIM: An incoherent standard. Studies in Health >>> Technology and Informatics. 2006 August 2006(124):133-8. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Juanita >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > >
