On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Seref Arikan < serefarikan at kurumsalteknoloji.com> wrote:
> > >> > 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. > I will correct the mistake of putting it next to OpenGalen. It literally is just "next" to OpenGalen without an intention to imply that they are similar in any way. Moreover, I am using ontology in the losest and most general way here. I suppose I should start strictly delineating between the notions of "model" and "ontology" but in reality openEHR is a good example of why that might not be such a good idea. It has some parallels with HL7 RIM and some parallels with SNOMED. > > 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. > Open Source licenses can and frequently do apply to anything, including specifications, data, software sourcecode, images, 3d models, etc etc. As I understand it, the OpenEHR specification is licensed under FOSS licenses. (am I wrong about that?) and that in my mind is a significant advantage. HL7 is a proprietary ontology that can be expensive. > 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. > In all honesty almost every standards person I discuss this with is either A. clearly affiliated with the OpenEHR project or B. either disinterested or unaware of OpenEHR. Granted it is still a small sample size, probably only 20 people total, but it is certainly bigger than most of my readers ability to get access to real experts to sample... > 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. > I can see that my positioning is incorrect, and that much, at least will be corrected... > > 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. > I think any "model" has to have some kind of reasonable expectation, either explicit or not, that a UI would have certain inclusions and exclusions. My understanding previously was that OpenEHR went much further in making these requirements explicit. Am I wrong about this? It was once presented to me as a benefit of OpenEHR vs others. > 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? > The whole point here is that the thing that diminishes the usefulness of OpenEHR the most is its lack of adoption. (I am aware of the catch 22 here. I am unwilling to promote the technology to potential adopters, because I feel that it is not adopted) > Should the professionals reading your book take HL7 RIM as a more > comprehensive IM than openEHR RM? > No, but it does seem to be more relevant. > 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). > I am doing a cursory technology analysis that asks one question: "Who is using this, to solve what problem?" The only answer that I can see is "not enough users" and "using it for something that HL7/SNOMED could do instead" > 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. > I understand that, and I am largely accepting the specific criticisms that have been made. But you have to understand that openEHR, and anything else covered in the book, must undergo a relevance check... the brevity that OpenEHR received was due to fact that I have trouble seeing its relevance. That brevity caused the "errors" that you are seeing. I have two options. If I think that the project is just the loser of a format war, then I just say "OpenEHR is an alternative to HL7 v3/RIM. It is cool cause it is Open Source, but nobody uses it. Heres a link http://openehr.org"; Or I can expand the section and ensure that it is right... 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" I did not mean for my comments to be taken that way. Instead it was intended to be taken as "hey we are trying to give you all a fair shake, unlike other publishers, could you please give us a break?" > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120217/5c51daaa/attachment.html>
