Constraints on class methods
Further to my previous email, I believe the original intent of the name attribute is a form caption of an element value, the approach of adding a numeric suffix to provide a unique key is contrary to this original intent. Btw, another example of multiple names values conflict with this unique name rule is multiple alias party-identity occurences, in fact anywhere where you use a coded name such as a lab observation with multiple occurrences. Adding a suffix makes the value different to the code rubric, which frowned upon in terminology circles. Heath On 11/01/2012 11:25 PM, Heath Frankel heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com wrote: Peter, I believe this unique name rule should be reviewed and revoked. It is not formally defined, as indicated in your referenced Jira issue its only stated in the architecture overview in the context of paths which assumes name is the unique within a container. I have other examples where it is desirable to get multiple items with the same node-id but not the entire set and name is the obvious collector. It also causes issues in renamed templated items which you still want to allow more than one occurrence of that item. I believe that path predicates are context specific, some times you may want to use event time or entry uid for example, and should not be dictated by the reference model. Heath On 10/01/2012 10:43 PM, Peter Gummer peter.gummer at oceaninformatics.com wrote: Sebastian Garde wrote: A few other functional properties come to mind such as type in PARTY_RELATIONSHIP ... Re type: This is the same as the property name (because of the type_validity invariant) Yes, funny you should mention that, Sebastian, because I discovered yesterday that this is a bug in the spec. As is well known, the name must be unique among siblings within a container. This uniqueness is incompatible with the PARTY_RELATIONSHIP type, because it would be common for a party to have multiple relationships of the same type. http://www.openehr.org/issues/browse/SPECPR-54 discusses this. I had to find a work around for it in my software. I chose to violate the type_validity invariant: when setting the type, I append a sequential number to it to set the name; and I compute the type by stripping the sequential number off the name. This ensures that the name is unique, while permitting multiple siblings of the same type. - Peter ___ 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/20120112/4674a530/attachment.html
Constraints on class methods
Heath Frankel wrote: I believe this unique name rule should be reviewed and revoked. It is not formally defined, as indicated in [ http://www.openehr.org/issues/browse/SPECPR-54 ] its only stated in the architecture overview in the context of paths which assumes name is the unique within a container. I have other examples where it is desirable to get multiple items with the same node-id but not the entire set and name is the obvious collector. It also causes issues in renamed templated items which you still want to allow more than one occurrence of that item. I certainly agree with all of that Heath, having been frequently frustrated myself by this unique name rule. I thought that ADL 1.5 had resolved this issue a couple of years ago, hadn't it? We're still using ADL 1.4, though, so we are still stuck with the old rule, and I can't remember what the resolution was. If ADL 1.5 does revoke the unique name rule, then PARTY_RELATIONSHIP's type = name constraint could stay, in some form, depending on the outcome of this discussion about constraints on functions. - Peter
New AOM and ADL specs
I have uploaded significantly improved versions of the documents linked from this page. There are some formal (minor) changes to the models, including: the template 'object model' has been absorbed into the AOM (there is just the AOM for everything now), and much better explanation of templates in the AOM spec, along with some diagrams. See the openEHR CIMI home page http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/stds/CIMI+Home+Page, or go straight to the changed docs: * ADL 1.5 http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/architecture/am/adl1.5.pdf : the updated Archetype Definition Language, now including specialisation, external references, slot filling * AOM 1.5 http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/architecture/am/aom1.5.pdf : the updated Archetype Object Model, including specialisation slot filling semantics, validity conditions, and improvements to ontology and primitive types packages * Tempate Specification http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/architecture/am/tom.pdf: a description of how ADL and AOM are used to create templates; desription of the Template Object Model defining operational templates (OPTs). They are not yet finished or error-free, but I think the explanations will help a lot more than the previous versions. Some current conversations still have to be incorporated, of course. - thomas beale -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120112/737770cb/attachment.html
openEHR conference - proposal for Lake Bled, Slovenia 2012 - POLL
Hi all, ? I think this is a very positive initiative. In my capacity as the HL7 Croatia Chair, but perhaps even more importantly, ISHEP (www.ishep.org) Conference Programme Committee Chair, we would be interested in exploring the opportunities to combining efforts and supporting this event. ? Few important remarks - ISHEP is a regional two day conference that attracts about 100 experts from Slovenia, Croatia and neighboring countries, and discusses best practices around eHealth implementations. It is very much hands on practice, targeted workshops and implementation type of discussions, where the aim is to raise awareness and knowledge with local communities on European and world wide best practices on eHealth implementation. It is usually done under auspices of two Ministries of Health, and supported by professional community such as HL7, Croatian and Slovenian Society of Medical Informatics, EFMI, etc. The conference usually takes place in September-October time frame, and for the last two years it has been done in Croatia, whilst the preliminary agreement for 2012 is Slovenia. ? I think program-wise we would be able to combine the two efforts. The first day is a plenary one, where we have keynotes, selected presentations and panel discussion, whereas the 2nd day is several parallel workshops. If we would combine the efforts, we could set up quite a powerful plenary and define several parallel sessions on 2nd day (e.g. RIMBAA? CIMI? EHR Certification?). ? Please check out the ISHEP web site for further information, and let me know your initial thoughts. ? Thanks, all the best Miroslav Koncar ? Miroslav Koncar?PhD | OracleHealthcare Business Development Director, HL7 Croatia Chair OracleEastern and Central Europe, Middle East and Africa Budmanijeva 1/IV, 1 Zagreb?| Croatia Mobile: +385 99 3212253?| Phone: +385 1 6323206 Email: miroslav.koncar at oracle.com From: Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Sent: Thursday, 12 January 2012, 1:27 Subject: Re: openEHR conference - proposal for Lake Bled, Slovenia 2012 - POLL On 11/01/2012 11:14, Richard Dixon Hughes wrote: I think TC215 is presently scheduled for week of Sep 24 in Vienna (subject to final confirmation).? You should probably try to avoid clashing with that given 13606 overlap - but could aim to follow it. Richard DH thanks Richard, good to know. - 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/20120112/dad61f89/attachment.html
openEHR conference - proposal for Lake Bled, Slovenia 2012 - POLL
Hi Miroslav, This is a very interesting and attractive suggestion. I have looked at the ISHEP 2011 content and there is certainly a degree of overlap of interest, particular from national agencies, on which we can build. Sharing resources and sponsor input would certainly make much more sense than accidentally finding ourselves in competition. My only concern might be, from an openEHR perspective, that we lose some clear community definition, particularly as this is a new venture for us. I am sure with careful planning and marketing, the identity of each party/conference could be maintained. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office +44 (0)1536 414 994 fax +44 (0)1536 516317 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical Modelling Consultant,?Ocean Informatics, UK Director/Clinical Knowledge Editor openEHR Foundation ?www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org On 12 January 2012 13:54, Miroslav Koncar miroslav_koncar at yahoo.com wrote: Hi all, I think this is a very positive initiative. In my capacity as the HL7 Croatia Chair, but perhaps even more importantly, ISHEP (www.ishep.org) Conference Programme Committee Chair, we would be interested in exploring the opportunities to combining efforts and supporting this event. Few important remarks - ISHEP is a regional two day conference that attracts about 100 experts from Slovenia, Croatia and neighboring countries, and discusses best practices around eHealth implementations. It is very much hands on practice, targeted workshops and implementation type of discussions, where the aim is to raise awareness and knowledge with local communities on European and world wide best practices on eHealth implementation. It is usually done under auspices of two Ministries of Health, and supported by professional community such as HL7, Croatian and Slovenian Society of Medical Informatics, EFMI, etc. The conference usually takes place in September-October time frame, and for the last two years it has been done in Croatia, whilst the preliminary agreement for 2012 is Slovenia. I think program-wise we would be able to combine the two efforts. The first day is a plenary one, where we have keynotes, selected presentations and panel discussion, whereas the 2nd day is several parallel workshops. If we would combine the efforts, we could set up quite a powerful plenary and define several parallel sessions on 2nd day (e.g. RIMBAA? CIMI? EHR Certification?). Please check out the ISHEP web site for further information, and let me know your initial thoughts. Thanks, all the best Miroslav Koncar Miroslav Koncar?PhD | Oracle Healthcare Business Development Director, HL7 Croatia Chair Oracle Eastern and Central Europe, Middle East and Africa Budmanijeva 1/IV, 1 Zagreb?| Croatia Mobile: +385 99 3212253?| Phone: +385 1 6323206 Email: miroslav.koncar at oracle.com From: Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Sent: Thursday, 12 January 2012, 1:27 Subject: Re: openEHR conference - proposal for Lake Bled, Slovenia 2012 - POLL On 11/01/2012 11:14, Richard Dixon Hughes wrote: I think TC215 is presently scheduled for week of Sep 24 in Vienna (subject to final confirmation).? You should probably try to avoid clashing with that given 13606 overlap - but could aim to follow it. Richard DH thanks Richard, good to know. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
