OK. I accept the comment. However, the problem I have is that many of the
comments are a matter of opinion - that's ok, but it is not a right or
wrong. If the issues were balloted, by shere numbers HL7 would come out
ahead. The comment of attributes in quotes and the comment incorrectly
named does not make your point.
If you want HL7 to respond to your critiques, sedn them to the TSC or HL7
leadership.
W. Ed Hammond, Ph.D.
Director, Duke Center for Health Informatics
Thomas Beale
<thomas.beale at oce
aninformatics.com To
> openehr-technical at openehr.org
Sent by: cc
openehr-technical
-bounces at openehr. Subject
org Re: HL7 modelling approach
11/25/2010 11:13
AM
Please respond to
For openEHR
technical
discussions
<openehr-technica
l at openehr.org>
Ed,
I am not engaging in HL7-bashing. I am critiquing specific aspects of HL7v3
that don't work well and cause widespread problems. Anyone should
presumably be allowed to do that, otherwise how do we make progress? I
would argue that critiques of this sort do help - we received lots of
objections about openEHR from all kinds of places over the years and it
helps.
The negatives of HL7v3 need to be exposed and explained, because they are
getting in the way of interoperability and progress. HL7v2 is used
extremely widely. HL7v3 is not, and there are reasons for that. I am trying
to explain them, because ISO 21090 suffers from the same problems, and is
about to create the same problems as the RIM: a very complex standard that
is hard to use, has to be 'profiled' for use, and will be profiled in
numerous different ways, largely preventing the interoperability (and in
many cases, even implementability) it should have enabled.
I think this is important. It is not about any perfect standard; any
standard that at least followed basic modelling good practice is worth
contemplating and working together on. But standards that don't follow
basic, accepted modelling principles will just cause problems. There can be
no common pathway when one of the modelling approaches is this subtractive
modelling approach of HL7, it is only possible when all the candidates are
at least doing proper modelling. Then we can talk about which one to agree
on.
My only interests are in doing the engineering we need to do in this
sector. If I sound biased, it is because I do not see HL7 helping, and
worse, it is not listening, not even about basic modelling practices. So
the sector continues to suffer and make limited progress. I wish HL7 would
adopt recognised modelling practices, because then we could make very fast
progress.
- thomas
On 25/11/2010 15:22, William E Hammond wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
--
(Embedded image moved Thomas Beale
to file: pic51222.jpg) Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informatics
Ocean Informatics
Chair Architectural Review Board, openEHR
Foundation
Honorary Research Fellow, University College
London
Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British
Computer Society
Health IT blog
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pic51222.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5828 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101125/0e2da873/attachment.jpg>
