formatics,Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
Honorary Research Fellow, University College London
Director, Frectal Ltd.
+44.789.988 5068
www.frectal.com
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:09:36 +
From: Thomas Beale mailto:thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com>>
Subject: Re: Meaningful Us
p.m.
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: Re: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata
Thomas,
This is quit usable critique and I will certainly draw from it in
future revisions of the work.
You make the argument that OpenEHR is primarily for interoperability,
Hi Fred,
Thanks for coming along here. It has been an interesting discussion. I
just wanted to pick up on one point you made ..
"In my view once data is being exchanged on a massive scale, the
political tensions that the absence of "true meaning" creates will
quickly lead to the resolution of the
Op 18-02-2012 22:24, pablo pazos schreef:
> The key here is that within an openEHR based system, other standards
> like HL7, DICOM, SNOMED, MeSH, UMLS, ICD10, ... could be implemented
> to, each one for it's own task.
>
Supplementary to what Pablo wrote, I have a real life example.
In the Nether
Fred,
that's pretty much it. We can disagree whether we should solve the
sem-interop problem now (us; harder, longer) or later (you; get more
going faster), but that's not a real debate - in some places our view
makes more sense, in others yours is the practical sensible approach.
Our main ai
Hi Fred,
The OpenEHR notion, on the other hand, is to create a core substrate within the
EHR design itself which facilitates interoperability automatically. (is that
right? I am trying to digest what you are saying here). Trying to solve the
same problem on the "front side" as it were.
I
> (please, no flame wars, below I am just trying to explain _my_ point of
> view to Fred;-)
>
>
There is no need to worry about a flame war. I am certainly dubious, but I
take what you guys are doing and saying very seriously.
It seems like you are taking a totally different approach to semantic
in
Fred,
On 18/02/2012 00:26, fred trotter wrote:
> Thomas,
> This is quit usable critique and I will certainly draw
> from it in future revisions of the work.
>
> You make the argument that OpenEHR is primarily for interoperability,
> and I can accept that fundamental argument. It is
Op 18-02-2012 1:26, fred trotter schreef:
> Very confusing, and I have yet to see something compelling that can be
> done in OpenEHR that cannot be done with HL7 RIM.
It is not that I want to interfere between you and Thomas. I am happy to
leave the interoperability discussion with you.
Just wan
: fred.trot...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:12:13 -0600
Subject: Re: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
As Thomas said, openEHR is not about open source, is about an open standard for
globally interoperable EHR architecture.
...
I also sta
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Seref Arikan <
serefarikan at kurumsalteknoloji.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
> First of all, what is "open source ontology concepts"?
> openEHR has links to ontologies, but even with the extensive use of the
> term ontology, I would not call openEHR an ontology based specif
Thomas,
This is quit usable critique and I will certainly draw from it
in future revisions of the work.
You make the argument that OpenEHR is primarily for interoperability, and I
can accept that fundamental argument. It is difficult to swallow however,
when I hear the HL7 v3 wonks ta
Hi Fred,
If your target audience for the book is IT professionals and programmers,
you'd probabily like to be accurate in your statements. Since you've asked
for corrections, let me try to explain what does not look right here.
Let's take a look at the following excerpts shall we?
*OpenGALEN and O
On 17-02-12 14:39, Rene Spronk (Ringholm) wrote:
> However, as Thomas points out, to state that openEHRs primary focus on
> software design wouldn't do it justice: that's a means to an end. The
> raison d'etre is achieving interoperability.
Allow me to introduce my two cents.
For my personal point
Hi Fred,
Being neither part of the target audience of your book, nor an openEHR
user/implementer, allow me to focus on one the factual core statements
that was objected to:
> OpenEHR is a [..] approach to applying knowledge engineering principles
> to the entire EHR [..]. You might think of Ope
Hi Fred,
I think you are missing the point. The key thing we are working on in
openEHR is /interoperability/, not open source. Open source health
applications have historically not made any difference to
interoperability, intelligent computing or anything else - they are the
same as closed so
Hi, Fred Trotter here, one of the two authors of the book in question. I
wrote the portion covering OpenEHR, so I believe your complaints will
ultimately come to rest with me.
Generally however, let me put forward a note on how we are thinking at
O'Reilly . This book has been very popular, and we
Considering the incorrect reference to openEHR in the author's CTO
position, without knowing conext of were it is done, perhaps all references
were intended to be to openEMR?
Heath
On 12/02/2012 11:31 PM, "Thomas Beale"
wrote:
>
> It would be interesting to see what US-based list members think o
gt;
> ** **
>
> *From:* openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:
> openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Beale
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:01 AM
>
> *To:* openehr-technical at openehr.org
> *Subject:* Re: Meaningful Use and Beyond
I think we should strengthen arguments that Pablo proposed as promoters
of openEHR in the U.S., with scientific arguments and constructive
criticism openEHR initiative is and will be very competitive.
Regards.
Carlos.
Carlos Luis Parra Calderon
Hospital Universitario Virgen del Roc?o
Enviado
r-technical-boun...@openehr.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:01 AM
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
Subject: Re: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata
It would be interesting to see what US-based list members think of what Michael
has quoted bel
Comparing openEHR with SNOMED is plain wrong. Yes, part of the openEHR standard
is an ontology of concepts, but this are high level concepts to model generic
information structures, in the other hand SNOMED models fine grain concepts,
with almost no structure. Certainly here is a place to colla
nical-boun...@openehr.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale
Sent: 12 February 2012 13:01
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
Subject: Re: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata
It would be interesting to see what US-based list members think of what Michael
has quoted below. Is openEHR
I read the recently released O'Reilly book "Meaningful Use and Beyond" on
Safari books today and found the following errors
and some quite blatantly false statements about OpenEHR.
Firstly is the claim by one of the authors, David Uhlman, that he was CTO
of openEHR in 2001
- a claim which Thomas
It would be interesting to see what US-based list members think of what
Michael has quoted below. Is openEHR really seen as 'controversial' in
the US? (Controversy can be good - at least it means debate).
The quote below about David Uhlman being CTO of openEHR in 2001 is
certainly incorrect -
25 matches
Mail list logo
