On 02/18/2014 03:52 PM, Sebastian Garde wrote: > > On 18.02.2014 14:56, Bert Verhees wrote: >> For example, in the OpenEHR, the idea was that CKM would serve the >> world with archetypes, and there would be no need of a strong >> archetypeId-system, because, all archetypes ever to be taken >> seriously were in CKM. >> Now it is recognized that this is not the case, and the proposition >> regarding archetypeIds changed. > Hi Bert, > I think you would find a sufficient number of presentations and papers > from me and others about managing archetypes from around the time when > we started to work on CKM (2007) that would convince you that even > then we were far more realistic as to say that the openEHR CKM will > serve the world with archetypes. > We were and still are just striving towards the (lofty) aim to get as > much agreement/convergence as possible as well as unite the archetype > development efforts where possible.
Hi Sebastian, I remember, it must be a year ago, how much problems I had to convince this community that the archetypeId-system, which was based on only a few serious archetypes worldwide, would not do. You also participated in this discussion. I started that discussion about here: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/2012-December/002797.html Do you see how long ago it was, we needed to have this discussion? Only a bit more then a year. > That a stronger/better/different archetype-id system is needed is true > in my opinion - but a different story: for starters the archetype-id > system predates CKM (or even any vision of it) by many years as far as > I am aware. It is true that the CKM archetypes are of high quality (as far as I can judge), and that their existence is a good thing. But, archetypes can be much more then only having a specific high quality contents. They can, for example be structured, as I am thinking of, for example in a framework which causes some leaf-nodes to have predictable paths. This can have good effects on system-performance, data-mining, easy development, and other aspects. It is only a thought, not everyone will agree this is necessary, but that does not mean that it is useless to think in such a way. I think it is time to make that step forwards in two level modeling thinking. regards Bert
