Sorry I misunderstood you. Bert
Op dinsdag 18 februari 2014 heeft Sebastian Garde < sebastian.garde at oceaninformatics.com> het volgende geschreven: > > 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 > > -- *This e-mail message is intended exclusively for the addressee(s). Please inform us immediately if you are not the addressee.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140218/147406dc/attachment.html>
