Articles on Healthcare, Complexity, Change, Process, IT and the role of openEHR etc
other vertical > markets. Insurance always strikes me as applicable. Do you have any > examples from these spaces? > > * > * I know a bit about investment, and there is to be sure, less to > standardise. The interesting comparisons I think are in construction, mobile > telephony, automotive, telecomms, etc. Standards just don't get issued as > paper with no products behind them in these industries. > > - thomas > > ___ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > > ___ > openEHR-technical mailing listopenEHR-technical at > openehr.orghttp://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > > > -- > [image: Ocean Informatics] *Thomas Beale > Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informatics<http://www.oceaninformatics.com/> > * > > Chair Architectural Review Board, *open*EHR > Foundation<http://www.openehr.org/> > Honorary Research Fellow, University College > London<http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/> > Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer > Society<http://www.bcs.org.uk/> > Health IT blog <http://www.wolandscat.net/> > * > * > > ___ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > -- Grahame Grieve, CTO A: Suite 8a / 17 Burgundy St, Heidelberg VIC 3083 P: + 61 3 9450 2230 M: + 61 411 867 065 F: + 61 3 92450 2299 E: grahame at kestral.com.au W: http://www.kestral.com.au -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101028/a451a532/attachment.html> -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ocean_full_small.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5828 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101028/a451a532/attachment.jpg>
openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)
Erik Sundvall wrote: > openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1.adls > openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis.v1.adls > openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis_sweden.v1.adls > openEHR-EHR-LINK.indication.v1.adls > > Should not the identifiers instead be: > > openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1.adls > openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem-diagnosis.v1.adls > openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem-diagnosis-sweden.v1.adls > openEHR-EHR-LINK.indication.v1.adls > > Or have the identifier syntax and semantics requirements changed in > ADL/AOM 1.5? This has changed in ADL 1.5. The hyphen is no longer used. I'm sure I remember Thomas starting a discussion about this on the mailing list about a year ago. - Peter Gummer
openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)
Hi! Thanks again for quick and informative replies. Obviously was not paying enough attention when the discussion of the identifier change was taking place some time ago. I had started composing a long reply of how query implementation would get more complex unless the RM was changed at the same time. Then I saw Ian's reply regarding suggested RM changes, and trashed my reply. Nice :-) Three perhaps stupid followup questions: 1. Will the XML schema get updated to make sure patient data instances carry along the archetype/template inheritance in a good way? 2. Should AQL be modified to include a convenient way of specifying if we are asking for data only entered using a specific archetype or if we are looking for data entered using that archetype any of its specialisations? (Previously wildcards might have worked depending on interpretation/implementation of AQL documentation, now with the 1.5 change they definitely won't.) What should be the default behaviour if just writing an archetype name in part of the query? Quoting from the 01 Feb 2010 version of "Knowledge Artefact Identification" Section 5.3.3: ..."given an archetype X used to create data, the following archetypes could be used for querying: ? X, i.e. exact same version, revision & commit; ? any previous revision of X; ? any of the specialisation parents of X; ? any previous revision of any of the specialisation parents of X." Does the "could be used" wording here mean that the default behaviour of an AQL response should be to retrieve data matching all these cases? 3. Will the semantics and syntax of the path strings used in PATHABLE objects be affected? Where is that path syntax actually defined, is chapter 11 of the Archetype Overview the authoritative source? Has it ever been possible to find data from specialisations using calls to methods of PATHABLE? Should it be? Carrying specialisation lineage (including version numbers) in the RM/data itself sounds like a safe and good idea. That would be useful for simplifying e.g. distributed query implementation and for when you, in multi-purpose GUIs, want to climb up the generalisation ladder (e.g. when creating archetype based overviews/summaries). Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733 On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:29, Ian McNicoll wrote: > The draft spec for 1.5 knowledge identifiers can be accessed via > http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/Development+and+Governance+of+Knowledge+Artefacts ... > To get around the querying problem that Erik describes, it is proposed > to carry the specialisation inheritance list in the data. ... > >From Idenitifer document 5.3.3 > > The other possibility is to include archetype lineage information in > the data itself. This could be a > modified form of the identifier reference in the case of specialised > archetypes to allow lineage information > to be stored. > > TBD_14: proposed RM change: ARCHETYPED.archteype_id -> List[ARCHETYPE_ID]; in > LOCATABLE, just continue to use the direct archetype id as currently done. > > The simplest form of this would be as a list of operational identifiers, e.g. > > se.skl.epj::openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.genetic_diagnosis.v1.12, > org.openehr.ehr::openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis.v1.29, > org.openehr.ehr::openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v2.4
Articles on Healthcare, Complexity, Change, Process, IT and the role of openEHR etc
On 28/10/2010 12:22, Tim Cook wrote: > On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 12:13 +0100, Thomas Beale wrote: > >> I would certainly agree with this last statement for e-health - and it >> is a terrible way to do research. I have not encountered it in any >> other IT area, though. > Might want to re-think that one Tom. Can we start with DARPA? :-) > > --Tim * I don't think DARPA developed their work by sitting around tables talking about it - thomas * -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101028/df5b0414/attachment.html>
Articles on Healthcare, Complexity, Change, Process, IT and the role of openEHR etc
On 28/10/2010 11:25, Grahame Grieve wrote: > And none of your examples are vertical industry IT standards. > Mark Bezzina for Stds Australia pointed out to me that IT > vertical standards are a totally different thing to every other > kind of standard. Telecoms, to take one example, consists of many layers of protocols and technologies, most standardised, which form a very impressive stack. It's all IT, it just isn't seen as vertical any more because it is such an assumed part of our technological infrastructure. In terms of basic development process, I don't see IT 'vertical' standards as any different from any other standard. I just can't think of any kind of standard at all that should be developed in committees of randomly self-selected participants, many with no design or other professional experience. Let's be clear - all such standards are engineering specifications of one kind or another, and argumentation by committee simply is not a recognised or valid development paradigm for elaborating any kind of technical artefact. It could be used to discuss one, talk about its requirements, but it won't be able to build the thing in question. And yet this is what happens in health informatics. In finance, the standardisation that occurs is mostly by industry agreements, +/- government involvement, to set e.g. agreed classification of industry sectors, security types, and so on. The finally agreed schemes come from existing schemes used by companies in the industry, not from committee discussions. Much standardisation in the military sector comes from defence forces institutions and supplier companies. > > You're trying to portray Health IT as some kind of > bizarre exemption, in that things are totally done > in a weird way. But I don't think it's an exemption: I > think most IT verticals have the same problem, which > is that standards are being used as a stalking horse > for research. I would certainly agree with this last statement for e-health - and it is a terrible way to do research. I have not encountered it in any other IT area, though. - thomas* * -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101028/bf666923/attachment.html>
openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)
Shouldn't archetype identifiers and file names be separated? 2010/10/28 Peter Gummer : > Erik Sundvall wrote: > >> openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1.adls >> ? openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis.v1.adls >> ? ? ?openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis_sweden.v1.adls >> openEHR-EHR-LINK.indication.v1.adls >> >> Should not the identifiers instead be: >> >> openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1.adls >> ? openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem-diagnosis.v1.adls >> ? ? ?openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem-diagnosis-sweden.v1.adls >> openEHR-EHR-LINK.indication.v1.adls >> >> Or have the identifier syntax and semantics requirements changed in >> ADL/AOM 1.5? > > This has changed in ADL 1.5. The hyphen is no longer used. > > I'm sure I remember Thomas starting a discussion about this on the > mailing list about a year ago. > > - Peter Gummer > > ___ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)
In ADL 1.5 they are - you can name the archetype files however you like, and put them where you like. - thomas On 28/10/2010 09:46, Diego Bosc? wrote: > Shouldn't archetype identifiers and file names be separated? > > 2010/10/28 Peter Gummer: >> Erik Sundvall wrote: >> >>> openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1.adls >>>openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis.v1.adls >>> openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis_sweden.v1.adls >>> openEHR-EHR-LINK.indication.v1.adls >>> >>> Should not the identifiers instead be: >>> >>> openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1.adls >>>openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem-diagnosis.v1.adls >>> openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem-diagnosis-sweden.v1.adls >>> openEHR-EHR-LINK.indication.v1.adls >>> >>> Or have the identifier syntax and semantics requirements changed in >>> ADL/AOM 1.5? * * -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101028/466330a1/attachment.html>
openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)
The draft spec for 1.5 knowledge identifiers can be accessed via http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/Development+and+Governance+of+Knowledge+Artefacts The '-' based specialisation syntax is proposed to be dropped, as it became very unweildy once you srart to consider how to handle namespaces within specialisations , particularly when the specialisation has a different namespace to the parent. It gets even more confusing when you add in the requirements for templates and complex archetypes i.e aggregations. To get around the querying problem that Erik describes, it is proposed to carry the specialisation inheritance list in the data. Archetype identifiers are separate from filenames, but in practice, archetypes and templates do find themselves expressed as individual files on filesystems and it can be all too easy for versions/ namespaces to get mixed up, if the file names do not carry the same sort of uniqueness as is embodied in the offical archetype_id. >From Idenitifer document 5.3.3 The other possibility is to include archetype lineage information in the data itself. This could be a modified form of the identifier reference in the case of specialised archetypes to allow lineage information to be stored. TBD_14: proposed RM change: ARCHETYPED.archteype_id -> List[ARCHETYPE_ID]; in LOCATABLE, just continue to use the direct archetype id as currently done. The simplest form of this would be as a list of operational identifiers, e.g. se.skl.epj::openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.genetic_diagnosis.v1.12, org.openehr.ehr::openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis.v1.29, org.openehr.ehr::openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v2.4 Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax? +44(0)1536 414994 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical analyst,?Ocean Informatics openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL BCS Primary Health Care SG Group www.phcsg.org On 28 October 2010 09:46, Diego Bosc? wrote: > Shouldn't archetype identifiers and file names be separated? > > 2010/10/28 Peter Gummer : >> Erik Sundvall wrote: >> >>> openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1.adls >>> ? openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis.v1.adls >>> ? ? ?openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis_sweden.v1.adls >>> openEHR-EHR-LINK.indication.v1.adls >>> >>> Should not the identifiers instead be: >>> >>> openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1.adls >>> ? openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem-diagnosis.v1.adls >>> ? ? ?openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem-diagnosis-sweden.v1.adls >>> openEHR-EHR-LINK.indication.v1.adls >>> >>> Or have the identifier syntax and semantics requirements changed in >>> ADL/AOM 1.5? >> >> This has changed in ADL 1.5. The hyphen is no longer used. >> >> I'm sure I remember Thomas starting a discussion about this on the >> mailing list about a year ago. >> >> - Peter Gummer >> >> ___ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >> > > ___ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)
As Peter said, ADL 1.5 changes this. The hyphen is not nedeed (but it is accepted to allow backward compatibility). See http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/architecture/am/knowledge_id_system.pdf and also http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/architecture/am/dist_dev_model.pdf for a full description of why this is. - thomas On 28/10/2010 09:36, Peter Gummer wrote: > Erik Sundvall wrote: > >> openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1.adls >>openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis.v1.adls >> openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis_sweden.v1.adls >> openEHR-EHR-LINK.indication.v1.adls >> >> Should not the identifiers instead be: >> >> openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1.adls >>openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem-diagnosis.v1.adls >> openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem-diagnosis-sweden.v1.adls >> openEHR-EHR-LINK.indication.v1.adls >> >> Or have the identifier syntax and semantics requirements changed in >> ADL/AOM 1.5? > This has changed in ADL 1.5. The hyphen is no longer used. > > I'm sure I remember Thomas starting a discussion about this on the > mailing list about a year ago. > > - Peter Gummer > * * -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101028/f426b584/attachment.html>
openEHR-RM-LINK discussion - now also on mailing list :-)
Hi!
A question regarding naming/identifiers.
According to
http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/am/archetype_semantics.pdf
parts of the grammar for identifiers is...
archetype_id: qualified_rm_entity ?.? domain_concept ?.? version_id
qualified_rm_entity: rm_originator ?-? rm_name ?-? rm_entity_name
domain_concept: concept_name { ?-? specialisation }*
Surely you must just have been sloppy in...
http://www.openehr.org/svn/knowledge2/TRUNK/archetypes/openEHR_examples/link_archetypes/
...where the identifiers as of this writing (Revision 20) are:
openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1.adls
openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis.v1.adls
openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.diagnosis_sweden.v1.adls
openEHR-EHR-LINK.indication.v1.adls
Should not the identifiers instead be:
openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1.adls
openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem-diagnosis.v1.adls
openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem-diagnosis-sweden.v1.adls
openEHR-EHR-LINK.indication.v1.adls
Or have the identifier syntax and semantics requirements changed in
ADL/AOM 1.5? I hope note, because that would make AQL querying
implementation a lot harder when asking for an archetype including any
of it's speicialisations...
Isn't there any automatic check in AWB that specialisation identifiers
are correct?
Best regards,
Erik Sundvall
erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733
Articles on Healthcare, Complexity, Change, Process, IT and the role of openEHR etc
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 12:13 +0100, Thomas Beale wrote: > > I would certainly agree with this last statement for e-health - and it > is a terrible way to do research. I have not encountered it in any > other IT area, though. Might want to re-think that one Tom. Can we start with DARPA? :-) --Tim -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101028/c882585a/attachment.asc>
Articles on Healthcare, Complexity, Change, Process, IT and the role of openEHR etc
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 21:25 +1100, Grahame Grieve wrote: > You're trying to portray Health IT as some kind of > bizarre exemption, in that things are totally done > in a weird way. But I don't think it's an exemption: I > think most IT verticals have the same problem, which > is that standards are being used as a stalking horse > for research. I am getting mixed signals from what Tom is saying. I am not sure if he is suggesting that Health IT (as in EHR/EMR, DSS, CPOE, etc.) should go through the same rigorous government controlled testing that drugs and biomedical equipment go through? Or, if he is saying that "an" implementation proves usefulness? I think that there is a good case for the former. Sure it would increase costs, but at least they would work as advertised. :-) --Tim -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101028/55e2d532/attachment.asc>
Articles on Healthcare, Complexity, Change, Process, IT and the role of openEHR etc
Well, your specific comments certainly don't back your general statement up. Looking at the question of the other industries, what specific standard would you point to as an example we should follow, and how was it developed? Grahame On 28/10/2010, at 8:25, Thomas Beale wrote: On 27/10/2010 21:10, Grahame Grieve wrote: In all other industries, the quality of standards is measured initially against public safety and then against criteria of effectiveness and economic qualities. it seems you mean, by market testing. If not, do you have an example? well yes and no. Products produced by big companies of course have to undergo all kinds of testing to do with safety. With respect to fitness for purpose, the market will certainly sort a lot out. But to get to market, you have to have completely implemented and productised the offering - which means going way past the paper stage. By the time standards agencies see these things, they are guaranteed to 'work', the only question is to do with what they interoperate with. In all other industries that i know of, standards are created by a process whose inputs are already developed and productised offerings from companies I presume you refer to non-it industries. In IT the picture is rather more mixed. You certainly aren't describing the omg process, or the itu process, or the w3c process here. IT in recent decades has become quite poor, no doubt about it. Older standards (e.g. older network standards) tended to have hardware implications, and they simply could not be issued without having being implemented somewhere. In more recent times, W3C does at least manage some implementations of what it issues, but is mainly helped by major tech companies implementing the standards. Nevertheless, standards like XML Schema are still horrible, very weak formal underpinning, and hardly fit for purpose (being a document-based idea trying to satisfy data representation requirements). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_Schema_Language_Comparison . OMG has better process than any SDO in e-health, but the output is not always that inspiring. UML 2 is awful (try reading the 'infrastructure' and 'superstructure' specs - you really have to wonder what drugs they were taking), as is XMI. Which is why the Eclipse Modelling Framework (EMF) sprung up in the modelling space - to provide a usable alternative to XMI. A truly valid comparison would be with IT standards in other vertical markets. Insurance always strikes me as applicable. Do you have any examples from these spaces? * * I know a bit about investment, and there is to be sure, less to standardise. The interesting comparisons I think are in construction, mobile telephony, automotive, telecomms, etc. Standards just don't get issued as paper with no products behind them in these industries. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101028/ee2dabde/attachment.html>
Articles on Healthcare, Complexity, Change, Process, IT and the role of openEHR etc
DARPA doesn't "do" anything. DARPA sets goals, offers money, and lets the smartest people compete to achieve the goals. On Oct 28, 2010, at 5:08 AM, Thomas Beale wrote: > On 28/10/2010 12:22, Tim Cook wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 12:13 +0100, Thomas Beale wrote: >> >>> I would certainly agree with this last statement for e-health - and it >>> is a terrible way to do research. I have not encountered it in any >>> other IT area, though. >> Might want to re-think that one Tom. Can we start with DARPA? :-) >> >> --Tim > > I don't think DARPA developed their work by sitting around tables talking > about it > > - thomas > ___ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101028/889ee119/attachment.html>
Articles on Healthcare, Complexity, Change, Process, IT and the role of openEHR etc
> In all other industries, the quality of standards is > measured initially against public safety and then > against criteria of effectiveness and economic qualities. it seems you mean, by market testing. If not, do you have an example? > In all other industries that i know of, standards are > created by a process whose inputs are already developed > and productised offerings from companies I presume you refer to non-it industries. In IT the picture is rather more mixed. You certainly aren't describing the omg process, or the itu process, or the w3c process here. A truly valid comparison would be with IT standards in other vertical markets. Insurance always strikes me as applicable. Do you have any examples from these spaces? Grahame
Articles on Healthcare, Complexity, Change, Process, IT and the role of openEHR etc
gt;> >> - thomas >> >> ___ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at openehr.org <mailto:openEHR-technical at openehr.org> >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > > ___ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- Ocean Informatics *Thomas Beale Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informatics <http://www.oceaninformatics.com/>* Chair Architectural Review Board, /open/EHR Foundation <http://www.openehr.org/> Honorary Research Fellow, University College London <http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/> Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society <http://www.bcs.org.uk/> Health IT blog <http://www.wolandscat.net/> * * -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101028/40e21344/attachment.html> -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ocean_full_small.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5828 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101028/40e21344/attachment.jpg>
