On 02/09/2013 07:19, David Moner wrote: > > > > 2013/8/30 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com > <mailto:thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>> > > > You are probably right. I think for the moment I would like to get > ADL/AOM 1.5 completed (more or less) with the current assumptions, > at least until we can obtain some more evidence (particularly from > vendor companies with actual production implementations) and > modellers whose archetypes are deployed for real, that would show > that we need to change the current status quo. Call me > conservative, but I don't like changing things without real world > justification! > > > Well, LinkEHR is a real implementation in use by several > organizations, and we think these identifiers are needed both > technically and methodologically, so we will continue our way of doing > thing :-)
To be clear, I didn't mean modelling tools, I meant production EHR systems that use the resulting models. I'm still not really clear on the rules that LinkEHR uses to decide when at-codes are not defined in the archetype ontology section. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130902/8f7bb1e3/attachment.html>
