On 07/10/2014 21:46, William Goossen wrote: > Take care of a big caveat please: all health information systems start and > end with the human being. We should use the IT support that Thomas suggests > where possible, but.... to the extend that humans cannot make mistakes. And > the governance of archetypes / DCMs / valuesets / etc does require human > intervention and hence human understanding. So naming conventions are > important and are a different beast than the versioning of the file / > content. > Thomas' trick with the software reading the meta information is fine for one > specific purpose eg a record handling 100 archetypes or a composition of 88 > DCMs. However, what if that same system must do this for all 100 archetypes > for 25 - 100 diseases per specialty, with 30 specialties (100 x 25 x 30) and > allowing all kinds of combinations so x n. Beside the safety and quality > also performance comes into the picture. And I am not speaking yet of each > use of these combinations, e.g. for screens / data entry, storage, > communication, querying, aggregation, decision support etc. > > All the best, >
Hi William, the 'trick' I mentioned is for design / modelling environments where source artefacts are in use. Production environments use only pre-compiled templates, represented in an optimised form for the relevant environment; there is no need to worry about parsing source files. A typical production environment might have some hundreds or thousands of screens, and additionally some dozens of messages, documents or web service interfaces to specific data sets (a la FHIR/SMART). Deploying these number of compiled artefacts (or even 10x these numbers) is easy to do. - thomas
