Hi Ian, Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me, but I couldn't have said this better, total agreement.
Cheers Sebastian On 18.02.2014 17:22, Ian McNicoll wrote: > 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. Sebastian Garde* /Dr. sc. hum., Dipl.-Inform. Med, FACHI/ Senior Developer Ocean Informatics Skype: gardeseb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140218/3bb3e482/attachment.html>
