Hi Erik, I think that using an EHR service to store RM instances would be better than storing in SVN or GIT. Ultimately if the service was able to work from a GIT repository we would have the best of both worlds. I had considered offering the Ocean EHR server but I assumed the usual issues relating to the commercial backend would have made this not suitable so I didn't bother. Would your service be an alternative, especially since it is RESTful? Perhaps there is a need for multiple service implementations to be available working from the same instance repository, I am sure each have their strengths and weaknesses and interface approaches. For example the ocean EHR service picked up a data validation error reported on the list that another didn't. We can also use this to start comparing service models. Heath On 07/05/2012 4:32 PM, "Erik Sundvall" <erik.sundvall at liu.se> wrote:
> Hi! > > I agree that we need some RM instances etc initially. We have > versioned compositions in the demo server for our LiU EEE-system. We > don't know if they are 100% according to spec since they have not been > extensively tested. I'll upload some of them to the wikipage after a > deadline I have this week (remind me if they are not there next monday > ;-) I can give a limited number of people access to them now via > REST-interfaces (HTTP via a browser works fine). Mail me off-list if > you are in a hurry. > > Would EHR-data reflecting a number realistic patient stories be > interesting to collaborate on as a second step? I am in desperate need > of such EHR data in order to create and test EHR-visualisations. > Getting "real" patient data is a pain to get access to and if we get > it we can never share it. Could we share the effort of creating a > number of such EHR instances (and perhaps write a shared academic > paper about it) - If so let's first check/discuss some of the options > for data entry and once that is fixed we can involve more clinicians > to create and improve/review the stories. A shared set could be reused > in several projects and make them more comparable too. > > Best regards, > Erik Sundvall > erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 > > > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:48 AM, pablo pazos <pazospablo at hotmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Diego & Peter, > > > > What Diego said about evolving tests for ADL1.5 is true, we don't want to > > test the tools or the specs, we want to test our implementations (EHRs, > > services, repositories, etc). > > > > I agree this overlaps in some way with the CKM content (archetypes and > > templates), but our focus is on flat archetypes and operative templates, > > things that will be used by systems, not on source ADL archetypes with > > slots, abstract types and other things that makes implementation a pain > in > > the 4$$... you know waht I mean. > > > > I agree what Diego said in the last message: we want RM instances (XML) > in > > the repo, which will be valid against XSDs (that we need to test and fix, > > XSDs will be included in the repo too). JSON instances will be welcome > too > > :D > > > > To give more context, this is taken from a private message to Erik: > > > > What I have in mind is to create something like a unit test for openEHR > > applications and services, with archetypes, rm instances and term sets. > E.g. > > having a test set with some archetypes, a template, some term sets and a > > couple of instances in xml and json formats, and create some small > software > > that can handle those test sets, validating instances to schemas, > validating > > structures to archetypes, etc. and maybe geting data from the instances > and > > doing something with it, .... > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > >> From: yampeku at gmail.com > >> Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 00:23:44 +0200 > > > >> Subject: Re: How about creating an openEHR test base? > >> To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org > > > >> > >> Pablo also mentioned 'RM instances in a variety of formats', which are > >> not 'artefacts'. > >> > >> 2012/5/7 Peter Gummer <peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com>: > >> > Diego Bosc? wrote: > >> > > >> >> I would say the scope of that repository is different, as that is > part > >> >> of the test for current evolving 1.5 syntax and does not include > >> >> 'real' archetypes > >> > > >> > My understanding was that Pablo was not proposing real archetypes > >> > either. In his original post, Pablo proposed a "test base with sample > >> > artifacts". > >> > > >> > How would this be different from the purpose of the existing > >> > http://www.openehr.org/svn/knowledge2 repository? The only > difference that I > >> > can see is that Pablo has proposed adding a greater variety of > artefacts > >> > (OPTs, etc.), so it seems natural to add them to the existing > repository. > >> > > >> > - Peter > > > > _______________________________________________ > > openEHR-technical mailing list > > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120508/556c395b/attachment.html>
