Re: Nation wide EHR project by openEHR/ISO13606 got fund in Japan.

[Bert Verhees]

On 08-10-15 14:20, Shinji KOBAYASHI wrote:
We are happy to announce that Japan Medical Network Association(JMNA) 
was designated to implement nation wide EHR with openEHR/ISO 13606 
information models in competitive bid by Japan agency for medical 
research and development.


Of course congratulations, it seems good news for the OpenEHR community, 
but I do not understand the meaning of the message.


Does it say that ISO13606 will be a message format, and openEhr will be 
the storage model of a national EHR in Japan?


Or does it say something else?

Please enlighten us, or have some pointers to more information.

Thanks
Bert Verhees

___
openEHR-implementers mailing list
openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org

RE: Archetype publication question - implications for implementers

[Heather Leslie]

David,

The changes I’m proposing to the v1 archetype are non-breaking, so it will 
remain a v1 revision and as the changes are not related to content, can be 
republished.

The changes that are proposed and breaking will be folded into a draft for v2, 
which will be visible as a potential future version.

Heather

From: openEHR-implementers 
[mailto:openehr-implementers-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of David Moner
Sent: Thursday, 8 October 2015 7:12 PM
To: For openEHR implementation discussions 

Cc: For openEHR technical discussions ; 
For openEHR clinical discussions 
Subject: Re: Archetype publication question - implications for implementers


2015-10-08 1:23 GMT+02:00 Heather Leslie 
>:
It was Sebastian’s suggestion about governing at an intra-archetype level that 
has caught my attention - marking an existing data element as outdated, and 
adding a new one as a revision solves the issue of having correct vs incorrect 
units and avoids the necessity of a new version immediately. I suggest we make 
this modification to the existing v1 and republish as stable (and technically 
correct).

But that will not be v1 anymore...
At this point, anyone who has worked for a time with the archetypes of CKM 
knows that the readable archetype ID, including the version number, it is not a 
reliable reference to identify the archetypes (this is said somewhere in the 
specifications, but should be more clearly stated for newcomers). The only 
reliable identifier from a technical point of view is the MD5 hash of the 
definition part of the archetype. Any change to the structure will create a 
different MD5. Any (correctly implemented) system that uses it will find that 
it is a new archetype, call it v1, v1+internal revision, v2 or whatever.

As Diego said, the less complicated solution is to just follow the versioning 
rules that already exist.
David

--
David Moner Cano
Grupo de Informática Biomédica - IBIME
Instituto ITACA
http://www.ibime.upv.es
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner

Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (UPV)
Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3ª planta
Valencia – 46022 (España)
___
openEHR-implementers mailing list
openEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org