[This is Tim again, initially bounced] > And that is the issue, and what is at the root of this dispute. Tim does not > see the point of specialization or redefinition, which, in my opinion, is > why he can hold forth so strongly for XML. > > Randy Neall
You are mostly correct. It isn't that I don't think that re-use is a good idea. The knowledge modellers and developers are telling us by their actions that do not want to participate in the top-down, maximal data model approach. As I have said many times, for many years; it is a wonderfully engineered eco-system. Now we know, it just doesn't work in real practice on a global basis. So that had to change. Add in some other simplifications in the RM and openEHR turns into MLHIM. My goal is to encourage multi-level modelling to solve the semantic interoperability issue. Whatever acronym you want to tie to it. I know that MLHIM isn't perfect, but it is designed with agility and data durability in mind. --Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130406/e81f625a/attachment.html>
