Dave said:
> I don't actually think people should have the same tables. This is too
low
> of a level
> of commonality, in my opinion. The middleware approach says we will have a
> mechanism
> for specifying how information will be exchanged and requested including
> how to define
> new terms, translate terms, etc. People should be able to create new data
> types, etc.
> and still have things interoperate. Certainly things like ICD-9 data, of
> course would be standard.
Aha...now it is starting to make sense (to me!).
I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but the list is actually
made up of two kinds of people: the basic (pure) researchers and the
clinical (applied)
researchers. The basic researchers (like the developers of GEHR and HL7
3.0) intend to make a generalizable method of storing medical
information that will be flexible enough to accommodate yet undetermined
concepts.
The clinical researchers (like John, Alex, Tim et al) are those whoput
the models to test by actually implementing them.
GERH and HL7 3.0 are the only models now on the block. CORBAmed it seems
would be on a different (albeit very important) category ---- seamless
interfacing. If our discussions fall through and we fail to come to a
consensus, a commitment to a minimum of CORBAmed interfaces may be our
final decision.
However, if we work fast, we can decide on a model soon and perhaps agree
on a level as low and primitive as table design (since many of the
projects are just beginning anyway).
Chris (or Thomas Beale) and Gunther:
Please respond categorically and if possible, provide a reference.
1. Is it possible to extract a subset of your model enough to build a
primary care record?
2. If yes, can you provide us with this subset (please reference)?
3. This question is relevant to me (but maybe to John Gage too):
How do I then build my relational SQL tables from this subset? Or if
someone prefers to use an object-oriented dbase, how can he do this too?
Will appreciate your responses..
Thank you.
Alvin
