As a result we agree very well with the Archetype models proposed by openEHR.
Dave
At 11:31 PM 4/29/2004, Thomas Beale wrote:
Horst Herb wrote:
Initially I was thrilled by HXP. Pretty much the suggestion I was pushing locally for the past two years, and a delight to see somebody actually organizing it. A simple and straightforward solution, very easy to implement, close to zero initial barriers, but immensely expandable.I also noticed this - and had the same thoughts. There are nice models to use for demographics such as the one we have proposed in openEHR, which is based on the ideas of Martin Fowler and others who have developed such models; (the openEHR one is proven in trial software) - it is a completely soft model of attributes (controlled by archetypes, but you don't have to use them if you don't want); else if you want a more API-flavoured model, use the Corbamed PIDS model.
However, after reading a few details, I was dismayed: Why, oh why, perpetuate the deficiencies of flat table data storage into the 21st century???
While XML-RPC caters for complex dynamic data types such as maps (dictionaries) etc., how comes that we still would find "telephone1" and "telephone2" ???? Breaking all rules of good database design, and that includes designs of persistent objects or access to such.
Telephone1/telephone2 and similar ideas are really not good modelling, and will almost instantly break, as well as having limited use from the outset in widely different cultures/environments. The reason we and many others have gone to the trouble of doing more than simple-minded modelling is to get out of the numerous problems that such modelling brings with it.
- thomas beale
