On 31/08/2013 08:00, William Goossen wrote: > Dear Bert, > > I mean any kind of archetype, but in particular different archetypes for the > same concept, eg blood pressure. > > Thy can have internally the same atXxxx code for different nodes.
as a general thing they don't although it's not formally prevented. It's because nodes are uniquely identified by their paths, not just the local node id. That's the bullet-proof node identifier, and that's why bindings in archetypes today are mostly to paths, not just to single at-codes. > > I mean the the harmonization of data elements is done manually by human > beings, in order to allow data exchange by different systems. > > I find it awkward that similar to archetypes, the message or CDA content for > clinical concepts that are equal are coded / defined differently. This > prevents reuse and prevents consistency. > That's correct. It's better to just use archetypes, and generate CDA schemas, which are not in themselves any good to model with; or even better native message schemas - which reduce data conversion costs and increase patient safety. There's no real justification for introducing difficult to work with documents and schemas when seamless model-based artefacts can be generated, and used directly in software and messages. That approach is the future - generated downstream products from models - it's the only sustainable approach. - thomas
