David Forslund wrote: > > It does appear that programming languages seem to be the biggest barrier > for this particular open source community. Some like Java, some like Python, > some like PHP, > etc. That was the value of the IDL used in COAS, because it is language > independent > and really quite easy to read as an interface (as opposed to trying to read > WSDL). It > is important for interoperability to have interfaces specified in a > language-neutral > way, so that, in fact, Python built systems can interoperate with Java, etc. > XML seems now to > be the way that people want to do this, but at the cost of an enormous > increase in > complexity. And how many Web-Services are actually designed for > interoperability. > Interoperability in Web-Services seems to be a low priority. People seem to > think that > if they can exchange XML documents they are interoperable. But this does not > address the semantic interoperability. OpenEHR certainly understands this, > but > OpenEHR itself needs to be able to interoperate with non-OpenEHR systems if > we are to > really advance the state of healthcare IT. > Some other forthcoming specifications in the openEHR area that may be of interest: - EHR Extract (a few weeks; current draft available on request to individuals) - CDA R2 export mapping - EN 13606 mapping (this is nearly 1:1, and a bridging openEHR/EN13606 schema and Xslt should be publishable soon; we are waiting on the CEN and ISO processes aroung 13606 to complete) - virtual EHR API (see my previous post) - archetype-based query language (already in use; paper to be published in MedInfo 2007) - terminology subsetting query language (already in use; spec to be written)
There are various other things in the pipeline which provide intersystem connections, some based on archetypes. - thomas beale
