Pablo I agree that this is a good intellectual exchange. I also agree that the delight and interest in finding differences exemplified in this discussion sometimes obscures the substantial amount of (very similar) utility that these various elephants provide.
I have confidence that the ants can and should influence the elephants and their behaviour. The elephants were born and are sustained in order to make life easier for those of us trying to solve real information processing problems. Alongside that I would say that these architectural and process discussions are valuable - "There is nothing so practical as a good theory" [1] -- interestingly Kurt Lewin was as interested in how to find good theories, as in maintaining a productive balance between theory and practice. My hope is that the healthcare IT community (Ants, elephants and the rest of the menagerie) delivers increasing value while continuing to learn together and from each other. I am sure that the learning will involve sacred cows being challenged and passed over, and will involve some discomfort as well as delight. It will involve engineering, economics, politics, personalities, and more all the best Charlie [1] http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-lewin.htm On 9 November 2010 12:13, pablo pazos <pazospablo at hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > -- 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
