On 16/02/2014 09:24, Bert Verhees wrote: > I have read the PPT from Thomas which is linked in > http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/CIMI/CIMI+Entry-in-Entry+Modelling+Pattern
just to clarify, this PPT was created by the CIMI - it's based on the CIMI model, not the openEHR reference model. I have only made comments about it, not authored it. > > I have some remarks on that. My two cents: > > The proposal is written from the point of view of OpenEHR. > > Although, I cannot comment on medical content, only from the point of > view of information/developer. > > Unknown future use-cases must be implementable. The OpenEHR RM is too > semantic to be flexible on the long term. > So, all arguments, coming back a few times, about no need to change > the RM can safely be dismissed. well it depends on what we mean by 'changing' the RM. The archetype method relies on not changing (i.e. incompatibly with the past) the existing RM. But there is no reason not to add to the RM. E.g. if we want to model structures that would occur in CDISC and also Query return structures, we should add these to the RM. I am in favour of that. > Why would one not want to change the RM, when the use of the RM changes. > It is better to have an optimal RM for its purpose, than misusing an > RM which was designed with other goals in mind. > It is better to learn a lesson than to get stuck on a suboptimal > legacy RM. No argument there. The CIMI group however I think is trying to obtain an optimal RM for authoring shareable archetypes in a clean way that supports conversion and reuse in concrete existing formats. > > Thomas agrees in Option 6, which I think is his preferred Option. > > So the lesson is: No semantics in the Reference Model. this is a common but misleading idea! There are semantics everywhere. Even the type 'Integer' has some semantics. The question is what semantics should be in the RM versus what should not be. My view is that 'domain-invariant semantics' should be included (for whatever you say your domain is, e.g. EHR, health data etc), and that variable semantics should go into archetypes. The trick is to work out where that boundary actually is. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140216/b9515c48/attachment.html>
