It is not clear to me that Tom's remarks help either. HL7 had data types
very early. That is not the point. The issue is is there anything in the
future we can agree and work togwether. Unfortunately, I have come to the
conclusion we cannot not, and as a result we shall let the market make
those decisions at a price all of us pay. HL7 v4 is in even less use than
v3 at this time. I would say in the US, v2 is a huge success. If we play
mine is bigger than yours we all lose. I agree with Graham. Let's move on
to another topic. It's business as usual.
David I would hope you and others like you could help us resolve some of
the issues. Maybe the differences in approach, philosopy and organization
prevent working together. No one argues that HL7 is perfect - far from it.
But that is a result of the fact that those standards are produced in an
open process in which decisions are made by many. As a result, HL7
standards usually include something that someone does not like. However, I
think the alternatives are worse.
My prediction is that we need to be concerned that the world will move
forward without either organization playing a significant role. Technology
changes are already refocusing on what is important.
I'd love to see us pick a point in the future and work together to produce
useful standards. I actually extend this conversation to all of today's
SDOs. HL7 meets in Sidney in January. That provides an opportunity to
discuss some of these issues - perhaps with our members and not just the
leaders of the organizations.
Last post.
Ed
W. Ed Hammond, Ph.D.
Director, Duke Center for Health Informatics
David
<dneilsen at bigpond
.net.au> To
Sent by: For openEHR technical discussions
openehr-technical <openehr-technical at openehr.org>
-bounces at openehr. cc
org
Subject
Re: ISO 21090 data types too
11/07/2010 07:37 complex?
AM
Please respond to
For openEHR
technical
discussions
<openehr-technica
l at openehr.org>
I don't know if anyone in this group falls into this category. Often it is
not possible for those who want to participate to be able to do so. This
may be because of time constraints (they get paid to do a job, not attend
standards meetings) or they or the organisation that they work for cannot
come up with a) affiliation fees b) numerous plane tickets c) many nights
in expensive accommodation. It has been my observation that only those
with the freedom and the resources to attend meetings get their ideas
seriously considered.
This sort of comment from William is not helpful in any genuine discussion
of standards.
regards
David Neilsen
On 7/11/2010 6:14 PM, Williamtfgoossen at cs.com wrote:
ISO 21090 is a true ISO standard..
It does include a lot of OpenEHR data type specs, except where
OpenEHR decided to go their own way.
And in the HL7 space some are working on implementing the ISO 21090
standard in the HL7 models, which is quite a task, not impossible,
but a lot of work.
ISO 21090 is based on HL7 input yes, but it is definitely not an HL7
standard.
In particular the Coded Ordinal as in ISO 21090 meets the clinical
and research requirement of allowing both computations and code and
display text use for the semantics. That is not present in most HL7
v3 standards and will cause some upgrading of most messages.
It (ISO 21090) could have been "more" an OpenEHR standard if OpenEHR
had more cooperated in this space instead of reinventing again their
own data types.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Results 4 Care b.v.
dr. William TF Goossen
directeur
De Stinse 15
3823 VM Amersfoort
email: wgoossen at results4care.nl
telefoon +31 (0)654614458
fax +31 (0)33 2570169
Kamer van Koophandel nummer: 32133713
_______________________________________________
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
