J. Antas wrote:
I had a similar situation a few years ago when the OMG Health SIG was working on what became the COAS interface. I could not understand the GEHR model that was being presented. During an all day design session among a small group of us, with several of the GEHR old timers in attendence and a chalkboard to work through examples, I finally 'got it'.
... I must confess, I had a hard time trying to create a "user model" of it... and I gave up.
Either it is because I am not a native english speaker and I cannot fully understand some of the concepts beneath it, or it is because my own neural network was not able to "catch" it.
I really do believe that this kind of thinking is only able to be understood once your conceptual framework has shifted a considerable amount (assuming you have traditional IT exposure). I think that I was a hard case because I have professional training as a data modeler and some 15 years of experience in relational database design. I usually consider myself a quick study in new ideas too!
So perhaps the problem faced for Tom and the other's in explaining is that they can not now come at it with same set of conceptualizations, or world view on how to do data? It's difficult to appreciate how much of one's thinking has shifted after years of being immersed in the model.
I have to admit that it is only now that we have begun to write primers of various kinds to help understanding - they will start to appear on the web. But in the end, nothing substitutes for presentations and interactive communication...
And, I do believe that J. Antas is correct is saying that the best way to come at this would be through a working, practical, but still simple system.
The progression of most practical systems, especially FLOSS systems, is that they start small and simple and accrete complexity as needed. That sometimes (I am tempted to say always, but don't have the data) results in a major re-work of the fundamental model underneath the system.
Trying to come into a new system that is both complex and conceptually different from a starting point of zero is usually not possible without massive effort. The world of IT is always easier to live in when results come in small incremental steps, rather then waiting for a long time for the much grander end!
sure - and I think it is just fine that there are systems like Care2x and all the others. One day if we can offer a secure, interoperable, self-adapting EHR computing platform as a back-end, if it is any good, they may consider its utility to them. Until then, they (rightly) do business as usual. The only thing I wouldn't mind seeing is a bit of input into processes like openEHR if they (or others in similar positions) think they might one day use it. But then, everyone is busy....
- thomas beale
