Hi Fred, If your target audience for the book is IT professionals and programmers, you'd probabily like to be accurate in your statements. Since you've asked for corrections, let me try to explain what does not look right here. Let's take a look at the following excerpts shall we?
*OpenGALEN and OpenEHR are both attempts to promote open source ontology > con- > cepts. Both of the projects have been maturing but some view these as > unnecessary > additions or alternatives to SNOMED+UMLS. However, they are available > under open > source licensing terms might make them a better alternative to SNOMED for > certain > jurisdictions.* > > First of all, what is "open source ontology concepts"? openEHR has links to ontologies, but even with the extensive use of the term ontology, I would not call openEHR an ontology based specification. It is more of an information model, quite similar to HL7 V3 in some ways. So I think you're classifying openEHR in the wrong way, putting it next to OpenGalen. Second: what do you mean by open source? openEHR is a specification, just like HL7. If what you are referring to computer software licensing when you use the term open source, then you are not talking about openEHR specification. You're addressing the implementation(s) of the specification, which means you're talking about actual software. If that is not the case, I don't understand what the term "open source ontolology concepts" that defines both OpenGalen and openEHR according to your words actually means. Third: Who are the parties who view these as unnecessary alternatives to SNOMED+UMLS (both are efforts close to ontology approach btw) If you can't name them fine. But what aspects of openEHR and OpenGalen are unnecessary extensions? Again, you're talking about ontology/terminology focused initiatives. As a professional in this domain, I'd see openEHR much closer to HL7 then UMLS or SNOMED So in my opinion, these statements are positioning openEHR at the wrong spot in health IT, hence they are not correct. Now to the next part: > > *OpenEHR is a controversial approach to applying knowledge engineering > principles > to the entire EHR, including things like the user interfaces. You might > think of Open- > EHR as an ontology for EHR software design. Many health informaticists > disagree on > the usefulness of OpenEHR. Some believe that HL7 RIM, given its > comprehensive > nature, is the highest level to which formal clinical knowledge managing > needs to go.* > > There is nothing in the openEHR specification related to user interfaces. There are bits that are likely to become relevant to UI related implementation tasks, and this may have been mentioned at a fews spots (though I'm not sure), but openEHR specification does not offer or describe an approach to apply knowledge engineering to UI. Again, you classify openEHR as an ontologic approach, then comes the next bit: "Many health informaticists disagree on the usefulness of openEHR". Again, you don't give links or references to more detailed discussions of these many health informaticists, but could you at least mention the factors that diminish openEHR's usefulness for your readers who are going to make decisions based on the information you're giving them in your book? Should the professionals reading your book take HL7 RIM as a more comprehensive IM than openEHR RM? Do you mean that openEHR's knowledge management level is too high? Compositions, EHR etc are too abstract? If so, I'd like to know why? Not because I'm trying to defend openEHR, but because I'd like a comprehensive, justified analysis before arriving technical conclusions, which you seem to be doing here (the conclusion, not the analysis). For your information: the rest of your message after the parts I've discussed above is not really relevant to the critism you've received. You've put some effort into explaining why openEHR can't be considered as a widely adopted standard, but that is not the reason you're being critized, the correctness of statements about openEHR is what readers are disagreeing with you, not openEHR's adoption. Honestly, your long bits read as: "be happy that you've been mentioned in a book published by a big publisher, because you're never going to make it" Please try to see that what is expected from you is your statements to be correct and as precise as possible when you're addressing people about a technical topic. You're not asked to dedicate a chapter to openEHR, you're asked to do it properly even if you write a single sentence about it. By all means, please do correct my mistakes, and put the corrections in your next edition, which would deliver something useful for everyone. Kind regards Seref -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120217/30ecfb97/attachment.html>
