2013/9/2 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > > > 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. >
Of course, me too: http://www.eurorec.org/news_events/newsArchive.cfm?newsID=239 > 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. > > The rules are: - Every archetype node always has an explicit unique identifier. We use the atNNNN codes to do so, to minimize the impact with current ADL. - The archetype authors decide, during the definition and review process, which nodes need or have a description or terminology binding due to clinical reasons. -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130902/7273ebf9/attachment.html>
