[reposted for Tim; hist original bounced] On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> wrote:
> it's similar, but misses the crucial distinction between archetypes and > templates. Without that there is no library of re-usable concepts to use in > your data-set definitions. As far as I can tell, this distinction just > doesn't exist in MLHIM. So it means that every 'model' has to make up its > own definition of standard items like vital signs, lab analytes and so on. > MLHIM allows reuse but does not allow redefinition. Redefinition of a component after it has been used to generate instance data is a BAD THING. You are simply looking for trouble when models can morph into something they were previously not. Then we can discuss the complexity managing that process. It just isn't necessary in MLHIM. >> You will notice that we encourage artifact re-use in MLHIM as well. >> CCDs, PCTs, XForms and XQueries are all reusable. We just do not >> expect that there will ever be global consensus on any one artifact. > But you did say that there is no specialisation of models possible. That > removes a major mode of re-use. With archetypes, a development project can > take 10 archetypes from a national CKM, or openEHR's, and formally > specialise them, by adding further restrictions and/or extra data points, as > well as translating them, if that's needed. Those specialised archetypes > then go into templates they build locally. This system gives fine-grained > re-use and re-definition, while guaranteeing that a query for any > archetype-defined systolic BP based on a shared archetype, will work, > anywhere in the world, regardless of data set, application, clinical context > or language. > > >> As far as reading the files. The meta data is standards compliant RDF >> in standards compliant Dublin Core, in a standards compliant XML >> Schema. What is tricky or difficult about that? >> >> Yes Bert, most people use tools besides a text editor to do real >> development. Maybe only yourself and Richard Stallman use Emacs for >> everything? > I have sympathies both ways. Example: trying to read RDF in raw form is > useless. You can use a tool, but I'd rather have OWL abstract to look at, > and that's just text. > > - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- ============================================ Timothy Cook, MSc +55 21 94711995 MLHIM http://www.mlhim.org Like Us on FB: https://www.facebook.com/mlhim2 Circle us on G+: http://goo.gl/44EV5 Google Scholar: http://goo.gl/MMZ1o LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130410/721ab338/attachment.html>
