Hello Stef, Let me clarify this article: I've looked at the Dutch article you refer to and being familiar with the publications of Bernd Blobel, I think this a translation of an English paper he has done on these comparisons earlier [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16964348] or maybe an updated version.
The Generic Component Model is designed by Mr Blobel and often described in his publications, however, not sufficient detailed to follow his line of reasoning. > The GCM provides a multi-model approach for EHR architectures, > system development and implementations by the simplification of the > system description by means of: > - transparent domain management, > - the composition and decomposition of the system components > - the views from the different angles on the system (amongst which > thorough modelling of business models This bears references to the general RM-ODP framework. I have not yet been able to find the differences between GCM and RM-ODP. > Further in the article Blobel compares GEHR against the GCM. > Although the header of this section mentions the openEHR foundation, > he consistently talks about GEHR and the GEHR project. The URL for > GEHR links to a site, which has to do with different aspects of > healthcare than we?re generally talking aboutJ). The domain name registration must have expired at some point, since it did point to a website of that project once. > Also when Blobel talks about ADL he refers to a URL that doesn?t > exist anymore (http://www.deepthought.com.au/) and most Same here. This used to be a website of Thomas Beale. > In the discussion en conclusion section Blobel adds to this: that > within the EN/ISO 13606 approach, although almost complete as far as > semantic interoperability concerns, a lot of shortcomings and > inconsistencies have to be solved. As example: the issue of > structural composition and decomposition, as well as the modelling > of business processes is not solved well. > > Personally I think that such statements should be underpinned with > arguments/ scientific proof and/or examples or at least a reference > to a properly peer reviewed article that does so. I would like to > invite Blobel (and others if they feel obliged to) to This is the general feeling I'm left with when reading an article by Mr. Blobel. > My third and last question to the community is: are these > conclusions (if applicable to the current version of openEHR) valid > and if yes how can we address those issues? I think his conclusions are too generic to be able to address them properly due to lack of sufficient scientific underpinning. Bye, Helma
