Hi Charlie, > > 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 have some phrases on my own ;) 1. "Practical philosofy" is just a contradiction, like in "army intelligence". 2. All models are wrong. 3. Perfection doesn't exist. > 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 Yes, but we cannot make a revolution in every step we take, because: 1. It's has an enourmous cost 2. We see the tree and not the forest We have to find what we have in common in order to make a stronger community, if not, we are just ants that can't work together, and destined to die of hunger. My opinion is that today we have to work to make a stronger community, working on a common objetive. May be then we can make a big anthill of the size of an elephant. Kind regards, Pablo. > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101109/9fb9cc92/attachment.html>
