On 19/09/2011 09:55, David Moner wrote: > It sound as a very interesting proposal. > > As you say, profiling ISO 21090 data types leads to several problems > of inconsistency and non-interoperability. And in terms of efficiency, > our tests using the new data types in LinkEHR are not satisfactory at all. > > But my main question is if this initiative has possibilities of > achieving an official support from HL7. This is an important question > to prepare the future of current norms.
well it has become an official activity at least in HL7, and it seems from the interest of people at the San Diego meeting, it is not going to disappear. So I think it is a question of: a) what is the official form / structure of RFH accepted in HL7 and b) what is its status - e.g. DSTU, replacement, additional option, .... > This is what the 13606 says about the data types: > > "It is recognised that, at the time of producing this standard, a new > set of health informatics data types is being developed by ISO TC/215. > Once this is published, CEN may choose to deprecate TS 14796 in favour > of this new standard. In doing so, it will need to provide a mapping > correspondence to the new data type standard, and this mapping will > also need to be used in order to adopt the new data types alongside > EN13606-1." > > Thus, while no official ISO 21090 profile has been defined and mapped > to existing TS 14796 (although there are some proposals), the last > ones are still the valid ones for 13606. If there is any possibility > for this new proposal of Grahame to succeed, it would be a waste of > time to change current data types working with 21090. that is my conclusion also... - thomas
