Hear, hear. Don't know if I can be of any help but count me in. In response to Thomas reply in ISO. I agree that ISO is not the first place to create new standards. but it is the place to bring them to get worldwide acceptance. If we can come up with something that is agreed upon by HL7, openEHR, ISHTDO (and maybe some other parties I'm forgetting right now) there is a more than fair change it will get ISO acceptance.
Cheers, Stef Op 1 feb 2010, om 18:07 heeft William E Hammond het volgende geschreven: > I like your reply. I am willing to commit to putting energy behind merging > al standards groups, probably under ISO. > > W. Ed Hammond, Ph.D. > Director, Duke Center for Health Informatics > > > > Thomas Beale > <thomas.beale at oce > aninformatics.com To >> openehr-technical at openehr.org > Sent by: cc > openehr-technical > -bounces at chime.uc Subject > l.ac.uk Re: Interoperability with HL7 > > > 02/01/2010 12:02 > PM > > > Please respond to > For openEHR > technical > discussions > <openehr-technica > l at chime.ucl.ac.uk >> > > > > > > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
