You did indeed quote the definition from 20514 indeed. And I agree that the implication of the standard is that you can't do things without a formal all-encompassing top to bottom model. So I think you're right that the standards over-state the case. (but hey, what standard doesn't?) I was just pointing out that it's not that far over-stated though.
Grahame > You are right, there must be some kind of rules when PDFs are exchanged > to ensure that they are human readable and can be trusted by the > receiver (I also absolutely agree with Stef here), so for example the > natural language used must be agreed in advance and the meaning of > uncommon medical notions should also be agreed (although this point > probably already goes in the direction of semantic interoperability). > Anyway, with the notion "standardized EHR reference model" as used > within ISO 20514, I rather associate in my head a model such as the > openEHR reference model or EN/ISO 13606-1. Strangely the term > "standardized EHR reference model" is not itself defined within ISO > 20514, but there is a reference to the notion "EHR architecture", which > is defined in 20514 as "the generic structural components from which all > EHRs are built, defined in terms of an information model". > So, it probably depends on how one interprets the notion "standardized > EHR reference model" => if it is interpreted as "some kind of - maybe > also informal - rules between sender and receiver" than I think it is > required for functional interoperability. If it is interpreted as a > model such as the openEHR reference model or EN/ISO 13606-1, then I > would say it supports a "higher level of functional interoperability" > but is not actually required for achieving basic functional interop. > >> Then there's the question of interoperability. Generally what you >> describe >> is *integration* not interoperability. Picking these two apart is a >> fun game, >> but generally inteoperability is more about plug-n-play where as >> integration >> is about two systems made to work together. As you move your example >> from two >> to many systems, you'll be increasingly moving towards a standardised EHR >> reference model. > > In my question I actually referred to the definition of "functional > interoperability" as is given in ISO 20514. > > Cheers, Georg >
