Hi All, I think this is a good intelectual interchange, but I really don't know what conclussions will reach. >From outside I see people comparing positions and opinions, instead of >searching some common point of harmonization. Instead we talk about formats >and ways of modeling (it's like the windows vs. linux discussion). Reality is complex, and there are many ways of modeling reality, none is bad when it has a good utility.
My experience is that the HL7 ways of modeling things comes from representing XML Schemas in an object oriented way, but is not an schema, nor an UML. When I need to use some HL7 message or a CDA, I just simply model the RIM or the CDA in UML, and implement that. Yes, it would be nicer if the model was already UML, but I know I'm a small ant, and I can't tell a big elephant to change. So I work a little harder to get things done, and it works. In the HL7 UML models I've done, I get rid of a lot of (I think) unnecesary classes, in HL7 dataypes I've only the CD and CS classes to represent codes, I get rid of GTS and use SET<TS>, for IVL<PQ> I just use IVL<T>. When it come to structures like SET, IVL, LIST and BAG, I don't use ANY as a superclass. I separate real datatypes from structures. Just my grain of sand. -- Kind regards, A/C Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101109/e3ec7a07/attachment.html>
