MIE-2008
One thing to note: in the MedInfo 2007 page, all the links point back to the openEHR.org website, whereas in future conference webpages, we will usually upload attachments. The problem we have to tackle is that conferences is only one way to view material; after a while you want a proper index of the papers etc, and you no longer care that much about what conference they came from. I addressed this on the openEHR website with a 'publications' set of pages (currently workflow, Health ICT and archetypes). The conference-independent view of things is obviously teh more long term one. Would anyone like to propose how we do this on the wiki? Clearly an agreed discipline is needed, e.g. we might say that you have to upload to a page for papers, and then put an entry in the conference page that just points to that. I'd say the 'long term' view should be in the publications section on the website, while the wiki could be used to assemble the conference information. What could be done is put a list of upcoming conferences in the wiki, but also in the 'news/events' section of the website, possibly linking to the respective conference page in the wiki. The wiki is then used by the participants in the conference to update the information and possibly upload the PDF of the paper and/or slides of the presentations. If necessary, extra wiki pages could be added to include discussions on specific papers/workshops, all accessible from the conference page. When the conference is over, papers could (possibly) be uploaded to the website and added to a special Daisy document type that has metadata on the paper (e.g. title, authors, conference, keywords, maybe abstracts and links to the respective wiki pages). The publication section in the website could be created dynamically sorting publications on topics, keywords, conference etc. Bye, Helma
{Disarmed} Comparison of EHR models
Hello Stef, Let me clarify this article: I've looked at the Dutch article you refer to and being familiar with the publications of Bernd Blobel, I think this a translation of an English paper he has done on these comparisons earlier [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16964348] or maybe an updated version. The Generic Component Model is designed by Mr Blobel and often described in his publications, however, not sufficient detailed to follow his line of reasoning. The GCM provides a multi-model approach for EHR architectures, system development and implementations by the simplification of the system description by means of: - transparent domain management, - the composition and decomposition of the system components - the views from the different angles on the system (amongst which thorough modelling of business models This bears references to the general RM-ODP framework. I have not yet been able to find the differences between GCM and RM-ODP. Further in the article Blobel compares GEHR against the GCM. Although the header of this section mentions the openEHR foundation, he consistently talks about GEHR and the GEHR project. The URL for GEHR links to a site, which has to do with different aspects of healthcare than we?re generally talking aboutJ). The domain name registration must have expired at some point, since it did point to a website of that project once. Also when Blobel talks about ADL he refers to a URL that doesn?t exist anymore (http://www.deepthought.com.au/) and most Same here. This used to be a website of Thomas Beale. In the discussion en conclusion section Blobel adds to this: that within the EN/ISO 13606 approach, although almost complete as far as semantic interoperability concerns, a lot of shortcomings and inconsistencies have to be solved. As example: the issue of structural composition and decomposition, as well as the modelling of business processes is not solved well. Personally I think that such statements should be underpinned with arguments/ scientific proof and/or examples or at least a reference to a properly peer reviewed article that does so. I would like to invite Blobel (and others if they feel obliged to) to This is the general feeling I'm left with when reading an article by Mr. Blobel. My third and last question to the community is: are these conclusions (if applicable to the current version of openEHR) valid and if yes how can we address those issues? I think his conclusions are too generic to be able to address them properly due to lack of sufficient scientific underpinning. Bye, Helma
