Hi Sebastian, I think the original 'one-archetype-per-concept' statement was really applicable within a single repository or 'framework'. Much as we might want there only ever to be one for the world, this was clearly only ever going to be possible in the very long term, and quite impossible for some concepts.
Ian On 18 February 2014 16:05, Sebastian Garde <sebastian.garde at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > > On 18.02.2014 16:48, Bert Verhees wrote: > > 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. > > Hi Bert, I am not arguing with that, I am just pointing out that you are > relating two things (CKM and the archetype ids) that are not related in the > way you said. > If anything, the existence of several CKMs around the world now - which can > all talk to each other to get each other's archetypes - highlights the need > for a different archetype id system. > > As for the one-archetype-per-concept-principle in that discussion you link > to: It is what I said in other words above, the lofty aim to agree where > possible. It is not one step, but rather a very long process with > potentially many archetypes about the same concept in e.g. different > regions/countries in the meantime (and likely more than one forever). > Sebastian > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com ian at mcmi.co.uk Clinical Analyst Ocean Informatics Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, University College London openEHR Archetype Editorial Group Member BCS Primary Health Care SG Group www.phcsg.org / BCS Health Scotland
