I have to admit that I am tired of the HL7 bashing, most specifically by
Thomas. In my opinion, it serves no purpose. I would hope Thomas would
spend his energy in a positive direction, not by bashing HL&. Further,
quoting a blog from someone who has problems with HL7 does not make his
case nor help the situation. Regardless of what Thomas says, HL7 is used
by thousands of people. About 90% of the hospitals in the US use v2.
Further, the UK, Canada and Australia use v2. One reason that v3 is not
adopted in the US is the success of v2.
I think archetypes and/or DCM are important. Rather than working toward a
common pathway to mutually promote both HL& and openEHR, we have spent a
lot of energy of the negatives of HL7. n
If I became the one source of standards, I think I could make the perfect
standard. Of course, no one else would think so. As openEHR expands it
use, it will get (and has gotten) pusgback from persons who think it does
do what they want it to do. Then openEHR can say tough luck or they can
change to accommodate. Now you are in the world of HL7.
What I have argued for a long time is that we, all of use in the standards
arena, are an invisible minority. When it is convenient and in the best
interest of governments or large companies, they will make their own
standards. I would like to see us follow some of the good advice in this
discussion and move forward - quickly and competently.
So I'd love to see an e-mail that simply does not serve to bash HL7. We
need to undersatnd the differences and why, but we also need to understand
what we have in common.
I believe that Graham Grieve is the most organizally unbiased person I
know. He is biased by what he thinks is correct. I think he make an
honest attempt to deal with some of the issues relating to data elements
and reach a compromise between openEHr and HL7 data elements.
Unfortunately, it seems that even this approach has not led to success.
I have kept the e-mail thread, and would like to make some sense of it.
That trail also is important because it exposes the various philosophies
and differences. I may ask for permission from the participants of the
discussion to share their comments with a broader audience. The purpose of
the article would be to understand where we are and wht we differ and
perhaps enable a solution.
W. Ed Hammond, Ph.D.
Director, Duke Center for Health Informatics
Thomas Beale
<thomas.beale at oce
aninformatics.com To
> For openEHR technical discussions
Sent by: <openehr-technical at openehr.org>
openehr-technical cc
-bounces at openehr.
org Subject
HL7 modelling approach
11/25/2010 05:07
AM
Please respond to
For openEHR
technical
discussions
<openehr-technica
l at openehr.org>
Some of the things I mentioned in the last post on good modelling
practice, and the problems in HL7 due to not using them are mentioned
here in by Bill Hogan MD, who is Director of Medical Vocabulary/Ontology
Services, Pittsburgh Medical Centre. See
http://hl7-watch.blogspot.com/2010/11/demographics-hl7-vs-reality-part-1.html
- thomas beale
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
