+1 I think you're about to hit the right spot, it seems to be very near to THE solution for interoperability & reuse at a model level. Learning from the Internet approach (the biggest example of interoperability in the world, that actualy works) the multi-component or multi-layered idea seems the right idea: having a common core for layer 1, a bussiness layer with EHRs, ... seems just right. Another big advantage of this approach is the gradual implementation capability: I can implement & certify a layer 1 implementation, then implement layer 2, ... -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:19:28 +0100 From: [email protected] To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: lessons from Intermountain Health, and starting work on openEHR 2.x On 03/10/2012 23:02, Thomas Beale wrote: 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/20121004/1284c27b/attachment-0001.html>
