On 21/11/2010 13:49, William E Hammond wrote: > To all, > ... Even with > CDA, to send a single data value takes a lot of characters
openEHR would be the same in that respect. But the criteria we judge on now include things like computability, re-usability (of information) and so on, not just number of bytes and time to display. > I think we should be able to define structures independent of the > transmission of the data. How do we work together to move ahead? I have been arguing with HL7 folk for years on this point. But HL7 appears locked into defining the content within a message based model, full of message-related attributes and design features. This makes it very hard to re-use an HL7 content definition, even assuming it was agreed to be done as an HL7 template (unfortunately, this is in XSD, a disasterous modelling technology) or an RMIM. One of the things we tried to do from the outset with archetypes was to get away from this. Yes, openEHR archetypes implicate the openEHR reference model, but only about 30% of it - the semantics that matter to clinical modellers. And from openEHR templated archetypes, we can generate diverse downstream artefacts for use by normal programmers. The message XSD is a end-of-the-line downstream product, not a starting point in openEHR. - thomas * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101121/6ee93f52/attachment.html>
