hi All A roll up of comments:
1. ISO 21090 is often (always?) profiled It seems remarkable to me that people think it's a problem that ISO 21090 needs to be profiled. Who would've guessed that a full standard that meets many requirements is simpler to implement if you profile out the features that reflect requirements you don't have? I'm pretty sure that this is true of every other standard as well. It's certainly true of all my implementations of W3C, IETF, and OMG standards. 2. Some people have responded vehemently to Tom's initial comments I suppose I'm a little guilty. I don't mind people criticising ISO 21090. Other's people's list of criticisms will never be as a long as mine. But it's frustrating to respond to the same wrong comments repeatedly, especially when the come from people who are widely and rightfully regarded as genuine experts 3. In health informatics, standards are done differently. We had this discussion last week. I made the point that this is true of IT vertical industry integration standards. I don't believe Tom offered a counter example to this. 4. The ISO process is flawed Yes. As is every other process, each in it's own way. 5. Cryptic type names. Yes. Sorry. But we do actually define both short and long names, so that people can use either. But people always choose the short name. So there's a bit of market influence at work there. 6. Eric's comments about typing Eric, we do allow OID as a reference to value set. We expect that you need the OID registry and CTS to make this work (since you asked how it would). We discussed the notion of putting the entire value set in the data type, but this is not properly in the scope of the data types. I think that models can and should use the data types to communicate the possible set of values, but I'm comfortable that we didn't do this in data types Grahame
