On 06/04/2013 23:50, Thomas Beale wrote: > > [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.
actually, I will be a bit more specific. Let's say we are talking about archetypes for some of the following topics (the following are some openEHR CLUSTER archetypes): None of these can be defined by 'developers'. They are clinical content, and only clinical professionals can develop proper versions of them. So what you are saying is that 'knowledge modellers' (presumably physicians) don't want to build such models by participating in a modelling exercise in which they communicate with other physicians working on the same models? It seems to me that the only alternative is that they build their own private models and ignore everyone else. That's expedient, but it's also a guarantee of non-interoperability. Maybe you can explain your statements in more detail? thanks - thomas ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130407/ee7346b2/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: caheidaa.png Type: image/png Size: 16099 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130407/ee7346b2/attachment-0001.png>
