I am always somewhat surprised as well. Thanks by the way for your clarifying notes, that is exactly how I would summarise the discussions.
- thomas On 07/04/2013 22:08, Randolph Neall wrote: > Hi Thomas, > I'm surprised that at this advanced stage of openEHR's maturity you'd > still have to defend concepts like these, which are self-evident. Your > architecture, or something closely resembling it, is actually the only > path to (1) computability, (2) shareability, and (3) coherent and > maintainable program code. Ultimately the real enemy is chaos, and > that's precisely what you get unless someone detects and names the > universal patterns amidst the diversity, and structures program code > to conform to such patterns. I'm not clear why this should be > controversial. > This discussion is now dividing into two unrelated branches: (1) the > desirability of consensus around the content of data model, and (2) > whether the model itself, whether widely agreed to or not, > should embody a multi-level abstraction hierarchy permitting code and > logic reuse at its more abstract levels. Both branches, wrongly > argued, are a direct invitation to chaos. From what I understand of > it, openEHR is an attempt, in both regards, to avoid chaos. I can only > wish you success against the two challenges.
