13606 revisited - list proposal
At the CIMI meeting last week and elsewhere, I have noticed a lot of interest in the ISO 13606 2012 revision, specifically in a) whether the openEHR and 13606 reference models can be brought together for part 1 of the revision and b) in finalising ADL/AOM 1.5 for providing a new snapshot to ISO for part 2. It seems to me that it would be useful to have a dedicated place to discuss this, so I would like to propose a new mailing list, 13606-alignment at openehr.org Does this seem like a useful idea? - thomas beale
13606 revisited - list proposal
Great! this will be THE opportunity to think about an IM 2.0, and the first topic on my wishlist is the simplification of ITEM_STRUCTURE children :D -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:49:20 + From: thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: 13606 revisited - list proposal At the CIMI meeting last week and elsewhere, I have noticed a lot of interest in the ISO 13606 2012 revision, specifically in a) whether the openEHR and 13606 reference models can be brought together for part 1 of the revision and b) in finalising ADL/AOM 1.5 for providing a new snapshot to ISO for part 2. It seems to me that it would be useful to have a dedicated place to discuss this, so I would like to propose a new mailing list, 13606-alignment at openehr.org Does this seem like a useful idea? - thomas beale ___ 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/20111215/41c00947/attachment.html
[openEHR-announce] CIMI group goes with openEHR archetypes UML profile
Just translated to Japanese. http://openehr.jp/news/19 Cheers, Shinji 2011/12/14 Stef Verlinden stef at vivici.nl: Congratulations to all who made this possible and to ourselves This is a crucial 'breaktrough' which will pave the way towards future proof health records which will be widely accepted and used. Cheers, Stef Begin doorgestuurd bericht: Van: Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com Onderwerp: [openEHR-announce] CIMI group goes with openEHR archetypes UML profile Datum: 14 december 2011 10:38:14 GMT+01:00 Aan: openehr-announce openehr-announce at openehr.org [press release from the CIMI group] The Clinical Information Modeling Initiative is an international collaboration that is dedicated to providing a common format for detailed specifications for the representation of health information content so that semantically interoperable information may be created and shared in health records, messages and documents. CIMI has been holding meetings in various locations around the world since July, 2011. All funding and resources for these meetings have been provided by the participants. At its most recent meeting in London, 29 November - 1 December 2011, the group agreed on the following principles and approach. Principles 1.?CIMI specifications will be freely available to all. The initial use cases will focus on the requirements of organisations involved in providing, funding, monitoring or governing healthcare and to providers of healthcare IT and healthcare IT standards as well as to national eHealth programs, professional organisations, health providers and clinical system developers. 2.?CIMI is committed to making these specifications available in a number of formats, beginning with the Archetype Definition Language (ADL) from the openEHR Foundation (ISO 13606.2) and the Unified Modeling Language (UML) from the Object Management Group (OMG) with the intent that the users of these specifications can convert them into their local formats. 3.?CIMI is committed to transparency in its work product and process. Approach ADL 1.5 will be the initial formalism for representing clinical models in the repository. CIMI will use the openEHR constraint model (Archetype Object Model:AOM). Modifications will be required and will be delivered by CIMI members on a frequent basis. A set of UML stereotypes, XMI specifications and transformations will be concurrently developed using UML 2.0 and OCL as the constraint language. A Work Plan for how the AOM and target reference models will be maintained and updated will be developed and approved by the end of January 2012. ?Lessons learned from the development and implementation of the HL7 Clinical Statement Pattern and HL7 RIM as well as from the Entry models of 13606, openEHR and the SMART (Substitutable Medical Apps, Reusable Technologies) initiative will inform baseline inputs into this process. A plan for establishing a repository to maintain these models will continue to be developed by the group at its meeting in January. Representatives from the following organizations participated in the construction of this statement of principles and plan B2i Healthcare www.B2international.com Cambio Healthcare Systems www.cambio.se Canada Health Infoway/Inforoute Sant? Canada www.infoway-inforoute.ca CDISC www.cdisc.org Electronic Record Services www.e-recordservices.eu EN 13606 Association www.en13606.org GE Healthcare www.gehealthcare.com HL7 www.hl7.org IHTSDO www.ihtsdo.org Intermountain Healthcare www.ihc.com JP Systems www.jpsys.com Kaiser Permanente www.kp.org Mayo Clinic www.mayoclinic.com MOH Holdings Singapore www.moh.com.sg National Institutes of Health (USA) www.nih.gov NHS Connecting for Health www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk Ocean Informatics www.oceaninformatics.com openEHR Foundation www.openehr.org Results4Care www.results4care.nl SMART www.smartplatforms.org South Korea Yonsei University www.yonsei.ac.kr/eng Tolven www.tolven.org Veterans Health Administration (USA) www.va.gov/health Further Information In the future CIMI will provide information publicly on the Internet. For immediate further information, contact Stan Huff (stan.huff at imail.org) ___ openEHR-announce mailing list openEHR-announce at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-announce ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
13606 revisited - list proposal
technically speaking, CLUSTER is already simpler in current 13606 model :) 2011/12/15 pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com: Great! this will be THE opportunity to think about an IM 2.0, and the first topic on my wishlist is the simplification of ITEM_STRUCTURE children :D -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:49:20 + From: thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: 13606 revisited - list proposal At the CIMI meeting last week and elsewhere, I have noticed a lot of interest in the ISO 13606 2012 revision, specifically in a) whether the openEHR and 13606 reference models can be brought together for part 1 of the revision and b) in finalising ADL/AOM 1.5 for providing a new snapshot to ISO for part 2. It seems to me that it would be useful to have a dedicated place to discuss this, so I would like to propose a new mailing list, 13606-alignment at openehr.org Does this seem like a useful idea? - thomas beale ___ 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
13606 revisited - list proposal
Hello Thomas, The unofficial renewal process of 13606 (or pre-SDO process, as you prefer :-) will start next February at the EN 13606 Association General Assembly in Seville with an open and public consultation. Before that, to prepare a draft starting point, during January a consultation will be made to key actors, implementers and users of the standard, including openEHR. There is more information at http://www.en13606.org/index.php/activities/general-assembly-2012 As you know, my opinion is that an harmonisation or at least a seamless transition between 13606 and openEHR is a key element to succeed. David 2011/12/15 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com At the CIMI meeting last week and elsewhere, I have noticed a lot of interest in the ISO 13606 2012 revision, specifically in a) whether the openEHR and 13606 reference models can be brought together for part 1 of the revision and b) in finalising ADL/AOM 1.5 for providing a new snapshot to ISO for part 2. It seems to me that it would be useful to have a dedicated place to discuss this, so I would like to propose a new mailing list, 13606-alignment at openehr.org Does this seem like a useful idea? - thomas beale ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111215/82893545/attachment.html
13606 revisited - list proposal
Hi Tom, Yes, such a list would be good. Regards Seref On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote: At the CIMI meeting last week and elsewhere, I have noticed a lot of interest in the ISO 13606 2012 revision, specifically in a) whether the openEHR and 13606 reference models can be brought together for part 1 of the revision and b) in finalising ADL/AOM 1.5 for providing a new snapshot to ISO for part 2. It seems to me that it would be useful to have a dedicated place to discuss this, so I would like to propose a new mailing list, 13606-alignment at openehr.org Does this seem like a useful idea? - thomas beale ___ 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/20111215/92bebd9c/attachment.html
13606 revisited - list proposal
Dear Thomas, The creation of this list will be an excellent contribution to promote the harmonization process. In my opinion the alignment of these two initiatives is a concrete step to achieve interoperability among EHR systems. Best regards, Marcelo 2011/12/15 Seref Arikan serefarikan at kurumsalteknoloji.com Hi Tom, Yes, such a list would be good. Regards Seref On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote: At the CIMI meeting last week and elsewhere, I have noticed a lot of interest in the ISO 13606 2012 revision, specifically in a) whether the openEHR and 13606 reference models can be brought together for part 1 of the revision and b) in finalising ADL/AOM 1.5 for providing a new snapshot to ISO for part 2. It seems to me that it would be useful to have a dedicated place to discuss this, so I would like to propose a new mailing list, 13606-alignment at openehr.org Does this seem like a useful idea? - thomas beale ___ 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 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111215/abbb9c23/attachment.html
13606 revisited - list proposal
Dear Thomas, I think it is a good idea. Best Regards, Isabel El 15/12/2011 10:01, Marcelo Rodrigues dos Santos escribi?: Dear Thomas, The creation of this list will be an excellent contribution to promote the harmonization process. In my opinion the alignment of these two initiatives is a concrete step to achieve interoperability among EHR systems. Best regards, Marcelo 2011/12/15 Seref Arikan serefarikan at kurumsalteknoloji.com mailto:serefarikan at kurumsalteknoloji.com Hi Tom, Yes, such a list would be good. Regards Seref On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com mailto:thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote: At the CIMI meeting last week and elsewhere, I have noticed a lot of interest in the ISO 13606 2012 revision, specifically in a) whether the openEHR and 13606 reference models can be brought together for part 1 of the revision and b) in finalising ADL/AOM 1.5 for providing a new snapshot to ISO for part 2. It seems to me that it would be useful to have a dedicated place to discuss this, so I would like to propose a new mailing list, 13606-alignment at openehr.org mailto:13606-alignment at openehr.org Does this seem like a useful idea? - thomas beale ___ 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 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 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111215/54823acb/attachment.html
13606 revisited - list proposal
Great idea, Thomas! /Rong On 15 December 2011 10:29, Isabel Rom?n Mart?nez isabel at trajano.us.es wrote: Dear Thomas, I think it is a good idea. Best Regards, Isabel El 15/12/2011 10:01, Marcelo Rodrigues dos Santos escribi?: Dear Thomas, The creation of this list will be an excellent contribution to promote the harmonization process. In my opinion the alignment of these two initiatives is a concrete step to achieve interoperability among EHR systems. Best regards, Marcelo 2011/12/15 Seref Arikan serefarikan at kurumsalteknoloji.com Hi Tom, Yes, such a list would be good. Regards Seref On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote: At the CIMI meeting last week and elsewhere, I have noticed a lot of interest in the ISO 13606 2012 revision, specifically in a) whether the openEHR and 13606 reference models can be brought together for part 1 of the revision and b) in finalising ADL/AOM 1.5 for providing a new snapshot to ISO for part 2. It seems to me that it would be useful to have a dedicated place to discuss this, so I would like to propose a new mailing list, 13606-alignment at openehr.org Does this seem like a useful idea? - thomas beale ___ 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-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
13606 revisited - list proposal
Dear Thomas, I also think it's a good idea. Regards, Adolfo Mu?oz El 15/12/2011 11:04, Rong Chen escribi?: Great idea, Thomas! /Rong On 15 December 2011 10:29, Isabel Rom?n Mart?nezisabel at trajano.us.es wrote: Dear Thomas, I think it is a good idea. Best Regards, Isabel El 15/12/2011 10:01, Marcelo Rodrigues dos Santos escribi?: Dear Thomas, The creation of this list will be an excellent contribution to promote the harmonization process. In my opinion the alignment of these two initiatives is a concrete step to achieve interoperability among EHR systems. Best regards, Marcelo 2011/12/15 Seref Arikanserefarikan at kurumsalteknoloji.com Hi Tom, Yes, such a list would be good. Regards Seref On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote: At the CIMI meeting last week and elsewhere, I have noticed a lot of interest in the ISO 13606 2012 revision, specifically in a) whether the openEHR and 13606 reference models can be brought together for part 1 of the revision and b) in finalising ADL/AOM 1.5 for providing a new snapshot to ISO for part 2. It seems to me that it would be useful to have a dedicated place to discuss this, so I would like to propose a new mailing list, 13606-alignment at openehr.org Does this seem like a useful idea? - thomas beale ___ 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-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-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- Adolfo Mu?oz Carrero Instituto de Salud Carlos III Unidad de Investigaci?n en Telemedicina y eSalud Avda. Monforte de Lemos 5 - Pabell?n 14 28029 Madrid Tfno: +34 918222182 FAX: +34 913877567 * AVISO LEGAL * Este mensaje electr?nico est? dirigido exclusivamente a sus destinatarios, pudiendo contener documentos anexos de car?cter privado y confidencial. Si por error, ha recibido este mensaje y no se encuentra entre los destinatarios, por favor, no use, informe, distribuya, imprima o copie su contenido por ning?n medio. Le rogamos lo comunique al remitente y borre completamente el mensaje y sus anexos. El Instituto de Salud Carlos III no asume ning?n tipo de responsabilidad legal por el contenido de este mensaje cuando no responda a las funciones atribuidas al remitente del mismo por la normativa vigente.
13606 revisited - list proposal
Dear Pablos, Internally in the EN13606 Association I started to work on this renewal. The EN13606 Association will start to think about all 5 parts of the standard. With respect to 13606 part 1 - the reference model- I think we will have discussions on topics such as: - scope - Folders - Semantic links - the structure below the Entry Class - the type of relationships between the Composition/section classes used to structure documents and the Entry, Cluster and Element classes that define the clinical content. Possibly other members will have their own topics they want to put on the table. In our EN13606 Association meeting in February in Seville we start the discussions after a consultation phase. openEHR will be part of this consultation phase. Any input from openEHR is welcomed. A WIKI page will be started anytime soon on our website. After these discussions our suggestions will be submitted to CEN/tc251 and ISO/tc215. For more information about the EN13606 Association and the Seville meeting I refer to: www.en13606.org Non-members that want to participate in this meeting are invited to subscribe. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gfrer at luna.nl On 15 dec. 2011, at 05:03, pablo pazos wrote: Great! this will be THE opportunity to think about an IM 2.0, and the first topic on my wishlist is the simplification of ITEM_STRUCTURE children :D -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111215/0d9c5f74/attachment.html
Could YAML replace dADL as human readable AOM serialization format?
I have to say, the more I look at YAML, the more I wonder what the designers were thinking. For example, in this section of the spec, multi-line quoted strings are only allowed if the 'key' is also quoted (the strange looking JSON approach); if the key is not quoted (i.e. 'simple') then the value can't be quoted either. That's just nonsense! I am glad I am only implementing a serialiser, not a parser... - thomas
13606 revisited - list proposal
I asume there is no subscription fee for openEHR members. Cheers, Stef Op 15 dec. 2011, om 11:33 heeft Gerard Freriks het volgende geschreven: For more information about the EN13606 Association and the Seville meeting I refer to: www.en13606.org Non-members that want to participate in this meeting are invited to subscribe. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111215/163939c0/attachment.html
Could YAML replace dADL as human readable AOM serialization format?
On 15/12/2011 11:31, Thomas Beale wrote: I have to say, the more I look at YAML, the more I wonder what the designers were thinking. For example, in this section of the spec, http://yaml.org/spec/current.html#id2532720 multi-line quoted strings are only allowed if the 'key' is also quoted (the strange looking JSON approach); if the key is not quoted (i.e. 'simple') then the value can't be quoted either. That's just nonsense! I am glad I am only implementing a serialiser, not a parser... - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
Could YAML replace dADL as human readable AOM serialization format?
Hi!
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:44, Thomas Beale
thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote:
I have to say, the more I look at YAML, the more I wonder what the
designers were thinking. For example, in this section of the spec,
http://yaml.org/spec/current.html#id2532720
multi-line quoted strings are only allowed if the 'key' is also quoted
(the strange looking JSON approach);
if the key is not quoted (i.e.
'simple') then the value can't be quoted either. That's just nonsense!
Are you sure that is what it says?
Double quoted scalars are restricted to a single line when contained
inside a simple key.
Is it not rather that you may not use a multiline double quoted string
as a KEY (at all). It does NOT forbid you to use multiline?double
quoted strings in the value, no matter if or how you quote your keys.
I have certainly seen?double?quoted values for unquoted keys coming
from serializers claiming to be specification conformant.
Are any of your keys so long and complicated that they would need
multiline quoted strings?
I am glad I am only implementing a serialiser, not a parser...
In many less exotic languages they are already implemented :-)
Then you configure them and then throw your object trees at them.
An example of very unfinished work in progress, using poorly readable
ordering and based on the openEHR java-ref-impl (and probably exposing
too many fields) is attached below.
Best regards,
Erik Sundvall
erik.sundvall at liu.se?http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733
!http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/class/openehr.am.archetype.ARCHETYPE
adl_version: '1.4'
archetype_id: openEHR-DEMOGRAPHIC-PERSON.person.v1
concept: at
original_language: ISO_639-1::pt-br
translations:
en:
language: ISO_639-1::en
author: {email: sergio at lampada.uerj.br, organisation: Universidade
do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ, name: Sergio Miranda Freire}
description:
original_author: {email: sergio at lampada.uerj.br, organisation:
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ, name: Sergio Miranda
Freire Rigoleta Dutra Mediano Dias,
date: 22/05/2009}
other_contributors: ['Sebastian Garde, Ocean Informatics, Germany
(Editor)', 'Omer Hotomaroglu, Turkey (Editor)', 'Heather
Leslie, Ocean Informatics, Australia (Editor)']
lifecycle_state: Authordraft
details:
- language: ISO_639-1::en
purpose: Representation of a person's demographic data.
keywords: [demographic service, person's data]
use: Used in demographic service to collect a person's data.
copyright: ? openEHR Foundation
original_resource_uri: {}
- language: ISO_639-1::pt-br
purpose: Representa??o dos dados demogr?ficos de uma pessoa.
keywords: [servi?o demogr?fico, dados de uma pessoa]
use: Usado em servi?o demogr?ficos para coletar os dados de uma pessoa.
copyright: ? openEHR Foundation
original_resource_uri: {}
other_details: {references: 'ISO/TS 0:2008(E) - Identification
of Subject of Care - Technical Specification - International
Organization for Standardization.'}
definition:
attributes:
- rm_attribute_name: details
children:
- includes:
- expression:
left_operand: {item: archetype_id/value, reference_type:
CONSTANT, type: STRING}
right_operand:
item: {pattern: '(person_details)[a-zA-Z0-9_-]*\.v1'}
reference_type: CONSTANT
type: String
operator: OP_MATCHES
precedence_overridden: false
type: BOOLEAN
rm_type_name: ITEM_TREE
occurrences: [1, 1]
node_i_d: at0001
any_allowed: false
path: /details[at0001]
any_allowed: false
path: /details
- rm_attribute_name: identities
children:
- includes:
- expression:
left_operand: {item: archetype_id/value, reference_type:
CONSTANT, type: STRING}
right_operand:
item: {pattern: '(person_name)[a-zA-Z0-9_-]*\.v1'}
reference_type: CONSTANT
type: String
operator: OP_MATCHES
precedence_overridden: false
type: BOOLEAN
rm_type_name: PARTY_IDENTITY
occurrences: [1, 1]
node_i_d: at0002
any_allowed: false
path: /identities[at0002]
any_allowed: false
path: /identities
- rm_attribute_name: contacts
children:
- attributes:
- rm_attribute_name: addresses
children:
- includes:
- expression:
left_operand: {item: archetype_id/value, reference_type:
CONSTANT, type: STRING}
right_operand:
item: {pattern: '(address)([a-zA-Z0-9_-]+)*\.v1'}
reference_type: CONSTANT
type: String
operator: OP_MATCHES
precedence_overridden: false
type: BOOLEAN
- expression:
left_operand: {item: archetype_id/value, reference_type:
CONSTANT, type: STRING}
right_operand:
item:
Could YAML replace dADL as human readable AOM serialization format?
On 15/12/2011 12:51, Erik Sundvall wrote: Hi! Are you sure that is what it says? Double quoted scalars are restricted to a single line when contained inside a simple key. well I read this to say: * if you double quote a long String containing line breaks (if you don't yet get into different trouble) THEN * this scalar cannot be the value of a 'simple key'; * a 'simple key' is defined as: o A /simple key/ http://yaml.org/spec/current.html#index-entry-simple%20key has no identifying mark. It is recognized as being a key either due to being inside a flow mapping, or by being followed by an explicit value. Hence, to avoid unbound lookahead in YAML processors http://yaml.org/spec/current.html#processor/, simple keys are restricted to a single line and must not span more than 1024 stream http://yaml.org/spec/current.html#stream/syntax characters (hence the need for the /flow-key context/ http://yaml.org/spec/current.html#index-entry-flow-key%20context). Note the 1024 character limit is in terms of Unicode characters rather than stream octets, and that it includes the separation http://yaml.org/spec/current.html#separation%20space/ following the key itself. maybe I misunderstood that a 'simple key' can't have quotes, but in any case, the concept of a 'simple key', if the object of YAML is object data serialisation is ... pretty strange (if they are hash keys, then they are normal strings, there should be no problem. Not distingishing between hash keys and attribute names seems to be a problem in YAML as for JSON. Very odd design IMO). Why the syntactic structure of a 'value' should have any dependence on the syntactic structure of a 'key' is beyond me. Anyway, for the moment I will stick with the format (for Strings): unquoted_key: double quoted string this format passes the online parser tests, and handles multi-line strings better. Otherwise you have to use '|', '' and or '\' markers all over the place. - thomas -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111215/05fa19d7/attachment.html
13606 revisited - list proposal
Hi Stef, There are no subscription fees, all activities are open to the public. The only requirement is to confirm the attendance in advance because the space will be limited. David 2011/12/15 Stef Verlinden stef at vivici.nl I asume there is no subscription fee for openEHR members. Cheers, Stef Op 15 dec. 2011, om 11:33 heeft Gerard Freriks het volgende geschreven: For more information about the EN13606 Association and the Seville meeting I refer to: www.en13606.org Non-members that want to participate in this meeting are invited to subscribe. ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111215/59a07d26/attachment.html
13606 revisited - list proposal
Dear Thomas, Wonderful and much appreciated for setting the special reflector for it, thanks! Can you kindly provide the link how to join the new reflector? Thanks! --Wo -Original Message- From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@openehr.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 7:49 PM To: Openehr-Technical Subject: 13606 revisited - list proposal At the CIMI meeting last week and elsewhere, I have noticed a lot of interest in the ISO 13606 2012 revision, specifically in a) whether the openEHR and 13606 reference models can be brought together for part 1 of the revision and b) in finalising ADL/AOM 1.5 for providing a new snapshot to ISO for part 2. It seems to me that it would be useful to have a dedicated place to discuss this, so I would like to propose a new mailing list, 13606-alignment at openehr.org Does this seem like a useful idea? - thomas beale ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
13606 revisited - list proposal
Hi! On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 08:52, David Moner damoca at gmail.com wrote: The unofficial renewal process of 13606 (or pre-SDO process, as you prefer :-) will start next February at the EN 13606 Association General Assembly in Seville with an open and public consultation. Is there any formal link between the 13606 Association and the actual standardisation process or is the pre-SDO process to be seen as traditional lobbying? Perhaps the best thing would be if the 13606 Association and openEHR could bring forward a unified co-authored suggestion to the SDO process rather than two suggestions? Perhaps we can use the new mailing list Thomas suggested for mail conversations combined with the wiki of the EN 13606 Association, instead of having separate mailing lists and separate wikis for the alignment discussions in each community? Before that, to prepare a draft starting point, during January a consultation will be made to key actors, implementers and users of the standard, including openEHR. A great thing would be to actually have at least two independent _implementations_ of change suggestions (both AM and RM) after initial discussions but before any revisions to the standard are made. That is how some other SDOs work with technical artefacts and it could avoid some of the previous suboptimal approaches. I assume AOM 1.5 is a candidate for AM? Is anybody already working on an AOM 1.5 implementation in addition to Tom's Eiffel version? Are there people interested in updating the Java implementation (or some other implementation) before or during the SDO process? Regarding the RM I know Tom is experimenting with simplified ITEM_STRUCTURE as a BMM-schema for the AWB. Are there any other RM-redesign experiments going on anywhere? What is happening in the 13606-world regarding thoughts about practical datatypes? What about (optional) reusable ENTRY subtypes in the 13606 world? (see http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg05285.html under the heading 2. OBSERVATION et. al. (ISO 13606 CR)) As you know, my opinion is that an harmonisation or at least a seamless transition between 13606 and openEHR is a key element to succeed. I totally agree. Bringing the communities tighter together is another important thing. The way some leaders sometimes talk of the other organisation's approaches might not be helpful in that sense. Those of you having formal powers in each organisation please ask your leaders to speak as honestly and nicely as possible of each others organisations/communities/approaches, or else please change leaders. Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733
13606 revisited - list proposal
That's the simplification we need to the IM 2.0! :D -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos From: yampeku at gmail.com Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:30:46 +0100 Subject: Re: 13606 revisited - list proposal To: openehr-technical at openehr.org technically speaking, CLUSTER is already simpler in current 13606 model :) 2011/12/15 pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com: Great! this will be THE opportunity to think about an IM 2.0, and the first topic on my wishlist is the simplification of ITEM_STRUCTURE children :D -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111215/242f8ce5/attachment.html
13606 revisited - list proposal
Hi Gerard, is good to know! please publish the link to the wiki discussion when available. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Subject: Re: 13606 revisited - list proposal From: gf...@luna.nl Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:33:17 +0100 To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Dear Pablos, Internally in the EN13606 Association I started to work on this renewal.The EN13606 Association will start to think about all 5 parts of the standard. With respect to 13606 part 1 - the reference model- I think we will have discussions on topics such as:- scope- Folders- Semantic links- the structure below the Entry Class- the type of relationships between the Composition/section classes used to structure documents and the Entry, Cluster and Element classes that define the clinical content. Possibly other members will have their own topics they want to put on the table.In our EN13606 Association meeting in February in Seville we start the discussions after a consultation phase.openEHR will be part of this consultation phase. Any input from openEHR is welcomed.A WIKI page will be started anytime soon on our website.After these discussions our suggestions will be submitted to CEN/tc251 and ISO/tc215. For more information about the EN13606 Association and the Seville meeting I refer to:www.en13606.orgNon-members that want to participate in this meeting are invited to subscribe. Gerard Freriks+31 620347088gfrer at luna.nl On 15 dec. 2011, at 05:03, pablo pazos wrote:Great! this will be THE opportunity to think about an IM 2.0, and the first topic on my wishlist is the simplification of ITEM_STRUCTURE children :D -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos ___ 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/20111215/b2b20f4b/attachment.html
Questions about the relationship between Instruction, workflow and Action
Instruction state changes (without changing the instruction itself). Is that the way you have implemented that? So the state of the instruction is carried in the record of the action (if appropriate). Is that recorded on ACTION.instruction_details.wf_details? Thanks a lot!regards,Pablo. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111215/edf76e59/attachment.html
13606 revisited - list proposal
Hi Erik, I want to implement some simplifications of the item_structure in the EHRGen ( http://code.google.com/p/open-ehr-gen-framework/ ) we talked about this: http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-clinical/msg02231.html My focus is on the persistence layer, because we persist data using an ORM (object-relational mapping) component, and the complexity of the relational schema is proportional to the complexity of the object model. BTW, the EHRGen has the complete cicle of information implemented: automatic gui generation (based on archetypes and our gui templates), data validation against archetype constraints, data binding (creation of RM structures from user data input and archetypes), persistence of those structures, and getting data to show on a GUI. Now I'm experimenting with semantic queries (common SQL but based on arcehtype ids and paths). Regards,Pablo. Regarding the RM I know Tom is experimenting with simplified ITEM_STRUCTURE as a BMM-schema for the AWB. Are there any other RM-redesign experiments going on anywhere? What is happening in the 13606-world regarding thoughts about practical datatypes? What about (optional) reusable ENTRY subtypes in the 13606 world? (see http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg05285.html under the heading 2. OBSERVATION et. al. (ISO 13606 CR)) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111215/428ef9aa/attachment.html
13606 revisited - list proposal
will have some health specific items incorporated: e.g. Observation, etc. but even then contain many health a-specific constructs that can be used outside of healthcare. This thinking will have consequences for the present 13606 parts 1, 2 and 3. Some of the ideas ended up in the EN13606 WIKI. As you know, my opinion is that an harmonisation or at least a seamless transition between 13606 and openEHR is a key element to succeed. I totally agree. What I'm after is a specification in the public domain owned by a formal SDO. And that is what we all need. Bringing the communities tighter together is another important thing. The way some leaders sometimes talk of the other organisation's approaches might not be helpful in that sense. Those of you having formal powers in each organisation please ask your leaders to speak as honestly and nicely as possible of each others organisations/communities/approaches, or else please change leaders. Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 ___ 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/20111215/b2765baa/attachment.html
13606 revisited - list proposal
I have started a wiki page http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/openEHR+2.x+RM+proposals+-+lower+information+model for this 'lower RM' simplification. The top contains the existing models, feel free to add to the 'problem' list (why are we simplifying?). If you have a candidate solution to offer, please put it under a new heading - you will see a 'Candidate B' ready to be used by someone. If we proceed in that fashion, I think we can keep the proposals clear. NOTE: I have only half done my proposal, Candidate A, so don't bother looking at it yet. - thomas On 15/12/2011 14:54, pablo pazos wrote: Hi Erik, I want to implement some simplifications of the item_structure in the EHRGen ( http://code.google.com/p/open-ehr-gen-framework/ ) we talked about this: http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-clinical/msg02231.html My focus is on the persistence layer, because we persist data using an ORM (object-relational mapping) component, and the complexity of the relational schema is proportional to the complexity of the object model. BTW, the EHRGen has the complete cicle of information implemented: automatic gui generation (based on archetypes and our gui templates), data validation against archetype constraints, data binding (creation of RM structures from user data input and archetypes), persistence of those structures, and getting data to show on a GUI. Now I'm experimenting with semantic queries (common SQL but based on arcehtype ids and paths). Regards, Pablo. Regarding the RM I know Tom is experimenting with simplified ITEM_STRUCTURE as a BMM-schema for the AWB. Are there any other RM-redesign experiments going on anywhere? What is happening in the 13606-world regarding thoughts about practical datatypes? What about (optional) reusable ENTRY subtypes in the 13606 world? (see http://www.openehr.org/mailarchives/openehr-technical/msg05285.html under the heading 2. OBSERVATION et. al. (ISO 13606 CR)) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111215/a48de33d/attachment.html
