On 11/11/2010 23:14, Heath Frankel wrote: > > Hi Erik, > > Interestingly, this is the same proposal I put to Thomas about 8 years > ago and I go the same response. I do understand his rationale for > making a table a class rather than an attribute with additional > conformance statements to ensure a table is represented consistently, > but we know how well implementation guides get followed by > developers. In addition we would be missing the functions on the > class that which make it more pertinent. > > My concern at this point is that we do already have patient data being > collected using openEHR and collapsing the ITEM_STRUCTURE would be a > breaking change, I think it would need to be a 1.1 or 2.0 change if it > was going to happen. >
probably 2.0. The nice thing is, even if it is a breaking change, the data migration of older data (or equivalent on-the-fly processing) would be very simple. > Having said that, looking at the requirements from the clinicians it > seems that the need for TABLE is actually at the ITEM level rather > than the DATA_STRUCTURE level and Sam's proposal of extending CLUSTER > for TABLE and LIST (although I would suggest inheriting from the > abstract ITEM) would not be quite as bad as we can simulate the same > levels of structure for legacy data (although the class names would > still be different unless we included all of the ITEM_STRUCTURE types > as a type of ITEM to retain backward compatibility). > > I would also concur with your statements about the ENTRY sub types, as > Sam mentioned we have built an INSTRUCTION index that tracks the > current state/care flow step of instructions and their associated > ACTIONs providing efficient access to this information. The effort > required to implement this would have been much greater if these > classes were not specifically modelled. I guess as openEHR penetrates > the market, the more likely CEN 13606 would be updated with these > enhancements. To be honest I think this is the right standards > process, standardising of implementations that are known to work in > practice. I am sure we will learn more and improve the ENTRY > subclasses further before they go into the CEN standard, then the > standard will be more useful. > exactly! - thomas * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101112/04d04985/attachment.html>
