Thomas Offense was not intended ? I have always been more taken by the similarities between the openEHR and HL7v3 approaches, than the differences. I also agree that SOA and modelling are mainstream ? in HL7 and elsewhere. I do not know anyone in HL7 who is unhappy about this. Messages and documents continue to have a role alongside and within SOA frameworks ? I am not aware of anyone within HL7 or elsewhere who is upset by this either.
I too agree that collaboration is the way forwards All the best Charlie -- Charlie McCay, charlie at RamseySystems.co.uk Ramsey Systems Ltd, 23D Dogpole, Shrewsbury, Shropshire SY1 1ES tel +44 1743 232278 / +44 7808 570172? skype: charliemccay linkedin:charliemccay From: Thomas Beale <[email protected]> Organization: Ocean Informatics Reply-To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical at chime.ucl.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:02:06 +0000 To: <openehr-technical at openehr.org> Subject: Re: Interoperability with HL7 regarding any war - me neither ;-) Ed, I hope you see that it is reasonable to respond in some way to disinformation like 'only use openEHR if you are trying to talk to openEHR systems' - on an openEHR list! Nearly the only problem of interest in openEHR is adding semantics to existing environments. It is obvious by inspection that openEHR would not need to exist in its current form in order to talk to itself. There are theoretical difficulties with HL7v3 messaging & RIM, I don't think there is any way around that, and they do manifest in practical ways; there are also difficulties with CDA. But above all, I still (really, honestly, sincerely) want an answer from HL7 to the question: * how can I define a piece of domain content (microbiology result, Apgar result, ENT exam, etc) once and re-use it in multiple concrete technologies such as a) XSD, various GUI forms development, various programming languages, and b) for various different purposes, e.g. EHR persistence, messages, screen forms, and especially for creating portable queries from. * As far as I know I can't really. I can make an RMIM, or a CDA template, but I can't really use these together without treating them like different data schemas. And I can't directly re-use either for EHR persistence, querying, reporting or screen display or data capture. I am not saying that openEHR has got every last detail on this solved, but it does have large chunks demonstrable, including fully generated message schemas, programming objects, querying and reporting. The formal infrastructure is proving to be very solid and extensible - and yet it retains simple features like only one XSD for all openEHR data (well it is literally a collection of 6 or 8 component XSDs but you know what I mean). Within the openEHR framework we can generate the equivalent of any HL7 message or CDA - via a tool chain using archetypes, templates and terminology. And we can query the date with archetype-based queries. On the other hand, HL7 has a big community, much better marketing, and probably a better handle on use cases. To me the question about joining forces (which is what we in health informatics owe the world at large, I think) is how it can be done: it must have technical things like: * a solid, open formal platform framework * a clear, useful reference model * * a single source domain modelling approach * a solid querying methodology * an integrated set of service definitions * a clean way of integrating with any terminology * It must also have the qualities of a community: * a recognised meeting place and culture * * agile but defensible governance * buy-in from industry * an on-the-ground network of affiliates * a wide-ranging handle on the requirements of the domain * I would say openEHR's strengths are in the first list, and HL7's largely in the second - I am the first to recognise the community-related weaknesses of openEHR. What the world really wants here is a) ONE technical framework and b) ONE open community and governance framework. It could be possible, at the price of some dented egos. History says it will remain a dream. What would it take to overcome that? (Proper funding might be one answer) - thomas beale On 01/02/2010 15:51, William E Hammond wrote: > > Not trying to start a war, but I am disappointed at the continued dialog > that is negative toward HL7. If, in fact, openEHR has solved all of the > problems of interoperability and is being picked up around the world, I, > and I think, many of my HL7 colleagues will be delighted. Very few of the > members of HL7 make money from HL7, so I think our motivations are driven > by our companies and the market place. Solving the problems of > interoperability will certainly open the door for many more important > accomplishments. I hope archetypes are engaged by the clinical community > and help us make a key step forward. However, there are still hurdles to > be overcome before we have systems working together. Let's join forcesa > and publicize successes in a demonstratable way. Whether HL7 or openEHR, I > think one's success is the others success. > > _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100201/77095981/attachment.html>
