Re: Open Terminology (and archetypes)

[Thomas Beale]

Tim Churches wrote:

David Forslund wrote:

I don't understand all this discussion about implementation languages.
We need the API in a platform and language independent form and then
we don't have to worry a lot about the language except to make sure
that the implementation language works on the platform we choose to run on.
The OpenEHR should be made to conform to open standard interfaces (such
as those of the OMG HDTF, and which it is very close to anyway).

I hope that the OpenEHR API is a bit more digestible than a typical OMG document. Yes, I acknowledge that exhaustive specifications
which run to hundreds of pages do have some utility, esepcially for
large commercial system vendors, but most open source projects are resource-constrained, and if OpenEHR is to be useful and used in such
projects,
it needs to be simple enough for individuals to get their head around in
a
few days of effort. Or at least, there needs to be a version of the API
documentation which fulfils this need.

as far as that goes, I expect the EHR API to be:
- a few pages' overview & design principles
- class diagrams
- formal definitions

and not too long at that. I have to admit that I believe some of the OMG specs to be too complex as well.

Anyway, openEHR has a simple change request process: you just request a change on the appropriate list server.

- thomas