On 03/10/2012 23:02, Thomas Beale wrote: > On 13/09/2012 10:15, David Moner wrote: >> Hi, >> >> 2012/9/13 Erik Sundvall <erik.sundvall at liu.se >> <mailto:erik.sundvall at liu.se>> >> >> It would be great if e.g most of the future ISO 13606 version >> could be a true subset of openEHR instead of the current >> confusing situation. >> >> >> This is something I discussed with Thomas some time ago, it would be >> one of the best harmonisation solutions, but probably with a slightly >> different interpretation. Since 13606 has more generic classes (eg. >> the generic ENTRY can represent all of OBSERVATION, EVALUATION, >> INSTRUCTION, ACTION), instead of 13606 being a subset of openEHR I >> think that openEHR should be a specialized model of 13606. Obviously >> this would require a deep analysis and changes of the models, but >> that could be the idea. > > I don't care about the linguistics of subset / specialisation etc, I > just care about getting one model.... > > - thomas* > *
although - it will probably come out to have multiple entry points. The 13606 model is about what makes sense in EHR Extract messages. We built and implemented a more recent version of that, using lessons from 13606 - the openEHR EHR Extract. There are undoubtedly a lot of lessons from 13606 Extract use out there (there must be because nearly everyone implements the standard by changing, so that says something!). However, other parts of openEHR are concerned with the logical semantics of in situ EHRs, not just messages travelling between systems. So I think there could be a common core, an EHR part and an EHR Extract part. Having one standard for that would be hugely useful for industry. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20121003/6eb85167/attachment.html>
