Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Gerard Freriks (privé)]

Hi,

Next week we will meet in Brussels and discuss the proposals, discussion papers 
by the various working parties.
I think that the RM and data types will be simplified.
leaving semantics to be dealt with at the archetype level using standardised 
archetype patterns.
(participations, demographics, and things like ranges and more)

On behalf of the EN13606  Association I take part in the CIMI working group.
CIMI will help create archetype patterns.
CIMI models will be able to be converted to EN13606 artefacts.
And all in spite of the fact that CIMI has a very simple and strange RM derived 
from 13606-1. (At least that is the way I look at it)

The strange thing being the fact that they have defined a ‘Super ENTRY’ class 
that can contain the ‘normal’ ENTRY class.
They designed this because of the need to model for instance panels as one 
entity and each of its components.
(I’m of the opinion that the present 13606 RM can deal with all the CIMI 
requirements. This is how I create panels usually.)

 

Gerard Freriks
+31 620347088
gf...@luna.nl 
> On 26 aug. 2015, at 17:49, Erik Sundvall  wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Where can one find proposals/diagrams describing the refreshed RM (reference 
> model) in the new 13606 revision? Will 13606 keep using the old data types or 
> harmonize more with CIMI or OpenEHR?
> 
> Is there now consensus/majority regarding using ADL/AOM 2.0 for 13606? If so, 
> great!
> 
> When it comes to "simplifying" the RM (or perhaps moving complexity to 
> another meta/design-pattern layer) I think CIMI has gone further than 13606. 
> Are there any plans of aligning 13606 with CIMI?
> 
> //Erik Sundvall 

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Heath Frankel]

Technical, the original grammar for AQL was bound to openEHR RM classes, 
composition, version, observation, etc. theoretically it could be generalised 
to be a RM agnostic and should be the goal of the current AQL specification 
work if it hasn't already been done in the antlr grammar.

Regards

Heath

On 26 Aug 2015, at 9:40 pm, "Ian McNicoll" 
mailto:i...@freshehr.com>> wrote:

Hi Diego,

I was not aware of any 13606 implementations that support AQL , although I am 
sure there is some sort of path-based querying. AFAIK AQL is not part of the 
13606 scope.

Happy to be corrected.

Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

[https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0BzLo3mNUvbAjT2R5Sm1DdFZYTU0&export=download]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 26 August 2015 at 13:03, Diego Bosc? 
mailto:yamp...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I agree with most of the points, but I'm curious why you say that 13606 does 
not support AQL (and in any case wouldn't be "AQL does not support 13606"?)

2015-08-26 12:32 GMT+02:00 Ian McNicoll 
mailto:i...@freshehr.com>>:
This might help a little

http://www.slideshare.net/atalagk/implementation-and-use-of-iso-en-13606-and-openehr

Similarities:

Both use archetypes and ADL and two-level information modelling.
Both share the EHR, FOLDERS,COMPOSITIONS, ENTRY, ELEMENT classes.
Some archetype tools can work with both styles of archetype e.g LinkEHR and 
Archetype Workbench.
The just announced ADL2 Archetype editor/ template designer tools (beware!!! 
Early developer versions!!)

http://ehrscape.marand.si/designer/template-editor.html

http://ehrscape.marand.si/designer/archetype-editor.html

should be relatively easy to adapt to 13606 or other archetype-based reference 
models such as CIMI. They will be open sourced very soon.

Differences:

The EHR reference models are different
 In spite of sharing the classes above, the attributes within those classes 
differ
 openEHR sub-classes ENTRY into ADMIN_ENTRY, OBSERVATION, EVALUATION, 
INSTRUCTION and ACTION
 The datatypes are different

The demographic models are different
The EHR Extract formats are different

13606 is intended primarily for the communication of EHR extracts across 
systems but some persistence repositories exist.
openEHR is intended primarily for data persistence and querying within systems 
but it is possible to message openEHR data.

13606 does not (currently) support templates but ADL/AOM2 is being considered
13606 does not support AQL Archetype Query Language

13606 is  formal ISO standard but is closed source i.e. behind a paywall, as in 
normal for ISO published material
openEHR is open source and freely available

There is a great deal of cross-communication between the two communities and a 
number of people work with both formalisms. It is possible to transform data 
between the two formalisms but they are not directly compatible.

I hope that is accurate and non-contentious!

Ian





Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

[https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0BzLo3mNUvbAjT2R5Sm1DdFZYTU0&export=download]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 26 August 2015 at 10:14, ??? 
mailto:edwin_ue...@163.com>> wrote:
dear all ,
how could i  explain to someone difference and relationship between openEHR 
and EN13606
thx
--
???
15901958021



???1?

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Erik Sundvall]

Oh, that got sent too early, sorry. I meant to say:

Feel free to add some of these descriptions to the stack overflow question:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32010122/are-the-hl7-fhir-hl7-cda-cimi-openehr-and-iso13606-approaches-aiming-to-solve

Two people thought the question was bad enough to down-vote it, but I think
this discussion shows it to be useful, so maybe that can change.

//Erik

onsdag 26 augusti 2015 skrev Erik Sundvall :

> By the way feel free to add some of the
>
> onsdag 26 augusti 2015 skrev Erik Sundvall  >:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Where can one find proposals/diagrams describing the refreshed RM
>> (reference model) in the new 13606 revision? Will 13606 keep using the
>> old data types or harmonize more with CIMI or OpenEHR?
>>
>> Is there now consensus/majority regarding using ADL/AOM 2.0 for 13606? If
>> so, great!
>>
>> When it comes to "simplifying" the RM (or perhaps moving complexity to
>> another meta/design-pattern layer) I think CIMI has gone further than
>> 13606. Are there any plans of aligning 13606 with CIMI?
>>
>> //Erik Sundvall
>>
>> onsdag 26 augusti 2015 skrev Kalra, Dipak :
>>
>>> Dear Ian,
>>>
>>> Thanks also for your helpful reflections. I agree that once the standard
>>> is close to final we should perform and publish a detailed comparison and
>>> cross mapping between the reference models, as an aid to system
>>> implementers and tool makers.
>>>
>>> With best wishes,
>>>
>>> Dipak Kalra
>>>
>>> On 26 Aug 2015, at 17:20, Ian McNicoll  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Dipak,
>>>
>>> A very clear and helpful statement of current and future intent. I too
>>> agree that we should not focus negatively on the differences and that they
>>> are mutually reinforcing but people do ask and it's important that we are
>>> clear that while 13606 and openEHR share a number of tools, technologies,
>>> philosophies and even people + good relationships), they are not currently
>>> interchangeable or directly interoperable.
>>>
>>> From a high-level perspective they are indeed very similar but the
>>> detailed differences do matter to implementers, and I think we need to be
>>> clear to the market about these differences.
>>>
>>> Thanks too for the perspective on AQL adoption - makes complete sense to
>>> me in the 13606 context.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> Dr Ian McNicoll
>>> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
>>> office +44 (0)1536 414994
>>> skype: ianmcnicoll
>>> email: i...@freshehr.com
>>> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>>>
>>> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
>>> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
>>> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
>>> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>>>
>>> On 26 August 2015 at 15:33, Kalra, Dipak  wrote:
>>>
 Dear All,

 This is an interesting discussion, and I would like to stress the
 complementarity of the two.

 openEHR is, as others have said, an important consolidator of the
 state-of-the-art in best practices for the design of an electronic health
 record architecture, repositories and the underpinning of EHR systems. An
 important advantage is that it specifications are publicly accessible, and
 of course it has a vibrant community and a large number of tools to support
 its use.

 13606 has always had a good relationship with openEHR, but is primarily
 intended to be an interface standard between heterogeneous EHR systems, and
 is therefore optimised for that purpose (e.g. for mappings), which means
 its reference model is definitely simpler. There are many countries and
 situations where it is essential to have a formal international standard in
 order for it to be acceptable as part of a national strategy. Some vendors
 have also indicated that they like the inevitable stability of a standard,
 which changes infrequently. 13606 also has a community and tools, and of
 course many of its community are also part of openEHR, and vice versa.

 If one takes a high-level look at the many different globally-used
 representations of health data, it is easy to see that these two reference
 models are indeed very similar. Whilst near to the ground we can easily be
 tempted to focus on their minor differences, I believe it is of greater
 value to society and to our field if we can regard them - and champion them
 - as a mutually reinforcing pair of models.


 The specification of archetypes is very mature, and during the revision
 we expect to upgrade to the latest AOM (which is 2.0). This part of the
 standard will also remain focused on a logical representation supporting
 archetype interchange.


 As has been pointed out, AQL could in theory have been added to the
 standard, since it could “work" with 13606. However, another important
 imperative for a standard is that it has reached a sufficient level of
 maturity and stability. It was also felt important by the working groups of
 CEN and ISO 

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Bert Verhees]

On 26-08-15 16:33, Kalra, Dipak wrote:
The specification of archetypes is very mature, and during the 
revision we expect to upgrade to the latest AOM (which is 2.0). This 
part of the standard will also remain focused on a logical 
representation supporting archetype interchange.


Thanks Dipak, for announcing this, it is great news. And also thanks for 
explaining the current position of AQL in relation to 13606 and the way 
it is planned to integrate in the standard.


Best regards
Bert

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Erik Sundvall]

By the way feel free to add some of the

onsdag 26 augusti 2015 skrev Erik Sundvall :

> Hi!
>
> Where can one find proposals/diagrams describing the refreshed RM
> (reference model) in the new 13606 revision? Will 13606 keep using the
> old data types or harmonize more with CIMI or OpenEHR?
>
> Is there now consensus/majority regarding using ADL/AOM 2.0 for 13606? If
> so, great!
>
> When it comes to "simplifying" the RM (or perhaps moving complexity to
> another meta/design-pattern layer) I think CIMI has gone further than
> 13606. Are there any plans of aligning 13606 with CIMI?
>
> //Erik Sundvall
>
> onsdag 26 augusti 2015 skrev Kalra, Dipak  >:
>
>> Dear Ian,
>>
>> Thanks also for your helpful reflections. I agree that once the standard
>> is close to final we should perform and publish a detailed comparison and
>> cross mapping between the reference models, as an aid to system
>> implementers and tool makers.
>>
>> With best wishes,
>>
>> Dipak Kalra
>>
>> On 26 Aug 2015, at 17:20, Ian McNicoll  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Dipak,
>>
>> A very clear and helpful statement of current and future intent. I too
>> agree that we should not focus negatively on the differences and that they
>> are mutually reinforcing but people do ask and it's important that we are
>> clear that while 13606 and openEHR share a number of tools, technologies,
>> philosophies and even people + good relationships), they are not currently
>> interchangeable or directly interoperable.
>>
>> From a high-level perspective they are indeed very similar but the
>> detailed differences do matter to implementers, and I think we need to be
>> clear to the market about these differences.
>>
>> Thanks too for the perspective on AQL adoption - makes complete sense to
>> me in the 13606 context.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> Dr Ian McNicoll
>> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
>> office +44 (0)1536 414994
>> skype: ianmcnicoll
>> email: i...@freshehr.com
>> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>>
>> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
>> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
>> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
>> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>>
>> On 26 August 2015 at 15:33, Kalra, Dipak  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> This is an interesting discussion, and I would like to stress the
>>> complementarity of the two.
>>>
>>> openEHR is, as others have said, an important consolidator of the
>>> state-of-the-art in best practices for the design of an electronic health
>>> record architecture, repositories and the underpinning of EHR systems. An
>>> important advantage is that it specifications are publicly accessible, and
>>> of course it has a vibrant community and a large number of tools to support
>>> its use.
>>>
>>> 13606 has always had a good relationship with openEHR, but is primarily
>>> intended to be an interface standard between heterogeneous EHR systems, and
>>> is therefore optimised for that purpose (e.g. for mappings), which means
>>> its reference model is definitely simpler. There are many countries and
>>> situations where it is essential to have a formal international standard in
>>> order for it to be acceptable as part of a national strategy. Some vendors
>>> have also indicated that they like the inevitable stability of a standard,
>>> which changes infrequently. 13606 also has a community and tools, and of
>>> course many of its community are also part of openEHR, and vice versa.
>>>
>>> If one takes a high-level look at the many different globally-used
>>> representations of health data, it is easy to see that these two reference
>>> models are indeed very similar. Whilst near to the ground we can easily be
>>> tempted to focus on their minor differences, I believe it is of greater
>>> value to society and to our field if we can regard them - and champion them
>>> - as a mutually reinforcing pair of models.
>>>
>>>
>>> The specification of archetypes is very mature, and during the revision
>>> we expect to upgrade to the latest AOM (which is 2.0). This part of the
>>> standard will also remain focused on a logical representation supporting
>>> archetype interchange.
>>>
>>>
>>> As has been pointed out, AQL could in theory have been added to the
>>> standard, since it could “work" with 13606. However, another important
>>> imperative for a standard is that it has reached a sufficient level of
>>> maturity and stability. It was also felt important by the working groups of
>>> CEN and ISO that we do not introduce something very novel into this
>>> revision process. I did suggest that we consider adding a sixth part to the
>>> standard to support the distributed analysis of electronic health records
>>> (such as communicating queries). It was felt wiser, and I support this
>>> view, not to introduce something new to these five parts of the standard,
>>> but once it has finished its revision to propose a new work item to CEN and
>>> ISO on the querying of EHRs. AQL will inevitably be an important
>>> contribution to that new work item, a

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Erik Sundvall]

Hi!

Where can one find proposals/diagrams describing the refreshed RM
(reference model) in the new 13606 revision? Will 13606 keep using the
old data types or harmonize more with CIMI or OpenEHR?

Is there now consensus/majority regarding using ADL/AOM 2.0 for 13606? If
so, great!

When it comes to "simplifying" the RM (or perhaps moving complexity to
another meta/design-pattern layer) I think CIMI has gone further than
13606. Are there any plans of aligning 13606 with CIMI?

//Erik Sundvall

onsdag 26 augusti 2015 skrev Kalra, Dipak :

> Dear Ian,
>
> Thanks also for your helpful reflections. I agree that once the standard
> is close to final we should perform and publish a detailed comparison and
> cross mapping between the reference models, as an aid to system
> implementers and tool makers.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Dipak Kalra
>
> On 26 Aug 2015, at 17:20, Ian McNicoll  > wrote:
>
> Thanks Dipak,
>
> A very clear and helpful statement of current and future intent. I too
> agree that we should not focus negatively on the differences and that they
> are mutually reinforcing but people do ask and it's important that we are
> clear that while 13606 and openEHR share a number of tools, technologies,
> philosophies and even people + good relationships), they are not currently
> interchangeable or directly interoperable.
>
> From a high-level perspective they are indeed very similar but the
> detailed differences do matter to implementers, and I think we need to be
> clear to the market about these differences.
>
> Thanks too for the perspective on AQL adoption - makes complete sense to
> me in the 13606 context.
>
> Ian
>
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> office +44 (0)1536 414994
> skype: ianmcnicoll
> email: i...@freshehr.com 
> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>
> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
> 
> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
> On 26 August 2015 at 15:33, Kalra, Dipak  > wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> This is an interesting discussion, and I would like to stress the
>> complementarity of the two.
>>
>> openEHR is, as others have said, an important consolidator of the
>> state-of-the-art in best practices for the design of an electronic health
>> record architecture, repositories and the underpinning of EHR systems. An
>> important advantage is that it specifications are publicly accessible, and
>> of course it has a vibrant community and a large number of tools to support
>> its use.
>>
>> 13606 has always had a good relationship with openEHR, but is primarily
>> intended to be an interface standard between heterogeneous EHR systems, and
>> is therefore optimised for that purpose (e.g. for mappings), which means
>> its reference model is definitely simpler. There are many countries and
>> situations where it is essential to have a formal international standard in
>> order for it to be acceptable as part of a national strategy. Some vendors
>> have also indicated that they like the inevitable stability of a standard,
>> which changes infrequently. 13606 also has a community and tools, and of
>> course many of its community are also part of openEHR, and vice versa.
>>
>> If one takes a high-level look at the many different globally-used
>> representations of health data, it is easy to see that these two reference
>> models are indeed very similar. Whilst near to the ground we can easily be
>> tempted to focus on their minor differences, I believe it is of greater
>> value to society and to our field if we can regard them - and champion them
>> - as a mutually reinforcing pair of models.
>>
>>
>> The specification of archetypes is very mature, and during the revision
>> we expect to upgrade to the latest AOM (which is 2.0). This part of the
>> standard will also remain focused on a logical representation supporting
>> archetype interchange.
>>
>>
>> As has been pointed out, AQL could in theory have been added to the
>> standard, since it could “work" with 13606. However, another important
>> imperative for a standard is that it has reached a sufficient level of
>> maturity and stability. It was also felt important by the working groups of
>> CEN and ISO that we do not introduce something very novel into this
>> revision process. I did suggest that we consider adding a sixth part to the
>> standard to support the distributed analysis of electronic health records
>> (such as communicating queries). It was felt wiser, and I support this
>> view, not to introduce something new to these five parts of the standard,
>> but once it has finished its revision to propose a new work item to CEN and
>> ISO on the querying of EHRs. AQL will inevitably be an important
>> contribution to that new work item, and hopefully by the time we are ready
>> for it the AQL specification will be very mature and there will be much
>> more experience of its use, making it an ideal specification to standardise.
>>
>>
>> 

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Gerard Freriks (privé)]

We are in agreement, then.  :-)

Gerard Freriks
+31 620347088
gf...@luna.nl 
> On 26 aug. 2015, at 17:06, Ian McNicoll  wrote:
> 
> Hi Gerard,
> 
> Agreed - I was using messaging loosely - 'interfacing between systems' is 
> better.
> 
> Ian
> 
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> office +44 (0)1536 414994
> skype: ianmcnicoll
> email: i...@freshehr.com 
> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
> 
> 
> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org 
> 
> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
> 
> On 26 August 2015 at 15:04, "Gerard Freriks (privé)"  > wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I must repeat the scope of 13606 verbatim once more.
> It is NOT only for messaging but also for Interfaces
> 
> 
> 
> Gerard Freriks
> +31 620347088 
> gf...@luna.nl 
> 
> 
> 
> Scope
> This standard is for the communication of part or all of the electronic 
> health record (EHR) of a single identified subject of care between EHR 
> systems, or between EHR systems and a centralised EHR data repository. 
> 
> It may also be used for EHR communication between an EHR system or repository 
> and clinical applications or middleware components (such as decision support 
> components) that need to access or provide EHR data. 
> 
> This standard will predominantly be used to support the direct care given to 
> identifiable individuals, or to support population monitoring systems such as 
> disease registries and public health surveillance. Uses of health records for 
> other purposes such as teaching, clinical audit, administration and 
> reporting, service management, research and epidemiology, which often require 
> anonymisation or aggregation of individual records, are not the focus of this 
> standard but such secondary uses might also find the standard useful. 
> 
> This Part 1 of the multipart standard is an Information Viewpoint 
> specification as defined by the Open Distributed Processing – Reference model 
> (ISO/IEC 10746). This standard is not intended to specify the internal 
> architecture or database design of EHR systems. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 26 aug. 2015, at 14:57, Sebastian Garde 
>> > > wrote:
>> 
>> I'd agree with Ian here. 
>> While both could possibly support AQL, the difference I see is in intent, 
>> scope and actual implementation.
>> As Gerard says, 13606's main aim is to communicate between IT-systems and 
>> for this, AQL may not be quite as fundamental as it is to openEHR.
>> 
>> Sebastian
>> 
>> 
>> On 26.08.2015 14:44, Ian McNicoll wrote:
>>> Hi Bert,
>>> 
>>> "I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and every 
>>> system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL."
>>> 
>>> That is fair enough but we were asked to characterise the differences 
>>> between 13606 and openEHR and I am comfortable that the actual and formal 
>>> adoption of AQL is one of those  differences.
>>> 
>>> AQL is on the openEHR specifications roadmap but AFAIK this is not the case 
>>> for 13606. Of course that does not stop 13606 vendors implementing AQL but 
>>> in terms of actual differences between the 2 communities the adoption, or 
>>> intention to adopt AQL seems (from the outside) somewhat different both at 
>>> a practical and formal level.
>>> 
>>> Although AQL adoption in the openEHR community is far from universal, most 
>>> of the vendors/developers that I have spoken to see it as something they 
>>> want to implement, particularly as GDL is somewhat dependent on AQL.
>>> 
>>> I am just trying to ascertain if there is similar enthusiasm/intention 
>>> amongst 13606 vendors, or if AQL forms part of the current 13606 refresh 
>>> discussions.
>>> 
>>> Ian
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dr Ian McNicoll
>>> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 
>>> office +44 (0)1536 414994 
>>> skype: ianmcnicoll
>>> email: i...@freshehr.com 
>>> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation  
>>> ian.mcnic...@openehr.org 
>>> 
>>> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
>>> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
>>> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>>> 
>>> On 26 August 2015 at 13:28, Bert Verhees >> > wrote:
>>> On 26-08-15 14:23, Ian McNicoll wrote:
>>> but am not aware of any non-openEHR
>>> implementations
>>> Is there a Xhosa implementation of 13606 or OpenEHR?
>>> 
>>> Does that mean OpenEHR or 13606 are not able to support Xhosa?
>>> 
>>> I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and every 
>>> system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org 
>>> 

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Gerard Freriks (privé)]

That is good to know.

Gerard

Gerard Freriks
+31 620347088
gf...@luna.nl 
> On 26 aug. 2015, at 16:42, pablo pazos  wrote:
> 
> Dear Gerard, IMO "communication" includes the interfaces, I didn't excluded 
> them :D
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
> http://cabolabs.com  
> 
> Subject: Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606
> From: gf...@luna.nl 
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:03:18 +0200
> To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org 
> 
> 
> Dear Pablo,
> 
> According to the scope statement: the 13606 is for the creation of the 
> EHR-EXtract for communication between IT-systems
> and
> for the definition of the Information Viewpoint in Interfaces with system 
> services.
> 
> Gerard
> 
> Gerard Freriks
> +31 620347088
> gf...@luna.nl 
> On 26 aug. 2015, at 13:50, pazospa...@hotmail.com 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I would say that the main difference is that 13606 is for data communication 
> and openEHR is for EHR architecture, both based on archerypes.
> 
> For detailed differences just look at both information models, you will see 
> that 13606 IM is much simple.
> 
> About the specs, 13606 has 5 "chapters", including communication and 
> security, and openEHR specs don't have those.
> 
> The best way of knowing the differences is just to download the specs of both 
> and compare them.
> 
> Hope that helps,
> Cheers,
> Pablo.
> 
> Sent from my LG Mobile
> -- Original message--
> From: 王海生
> Date: Wed, Aug 26, 2015 06:14
> To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org 
> ;
> Subject:difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606
> dear all ,
> how could i  explain to someone difference and relationship between 
> openEHR and EN13606 
> thx 
> --
> 王海生
> 15901958021 <>
> 
> 
> 
> 夏日畅销榜大牌美妆只要1元 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org 
> 
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org 
> 
> 
> ___ openEHR-technical mailing 
> list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org 
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>  
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org 
> 
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org 
> 
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Kalra, Dipak]

Dear Ian,

Thanks also for your helpful reflections. I agree that once the standard is 
close to final we should perform and publish a detailed comparison and cross 
mapping between the reference models, as an aid to system implementers and tool 
makers.

With best wishes,

Dipak Kalra

On 26 Aug 2015, at 17:20, Ian McNicoll 
mailto:i...@freshehr.com>> wrote:

Thanks Dipak,

A very clear and helpful statement of current and future intent. I too agree 
that we should not focus negatively on the differences and that they are 
mutually reinforcing but people do ask and it's important that we are clear 
that while 13606 and openEHR share a number of tools, technologies, 
philosophies and even people + good relationships), they are not currently 
interchangeable or directly interoperable.

>From a high-level perspective they are indeed very similar but the detailed 
>differences do matter to implementers, and I think we need to be clear to the 
>market about these differences.

Thanks too for the perspective on AQL adoption - makes complete sense to me in 
the 13606 context.

Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

[https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0BzLo3mNUvbAjT2R5Sm1DdFZYTU0&export=download]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 26 August 2015 at 15:33, Kalra, Dipak 
mailto:d.ka...@ucl.ac.uk>> wrote:
Dear All,

This is an interesting discussion, and I would like to stress the 
complementarity of the two.

openEHR is, as others have said, an important consolidator of the 
state-of-the-art in best practices for the design of an electronic health 
record architecture, repositories and the underpinning of EHR systems. An 
important advantage is that it specifications are publicly accessible, and of 
course it has a vibrant community and a large number of tools to support its 
use.

13606 has always had a good relationship with openEHR, but is primarily 
intended to be an interface standard between heterogeneous EHR systems, and is 
therefore optimised for that purpose (e.g. for mappings), which means its 
reference model is definitely simpler. There are many countries and situations 
where it is essential to have a formal international standard in order for it 
to be acceptable as part of a national strategy. Some vendors have also 
indicated that they like the inevitable stability of a standard, which changes 
infrequently. 13606 also has a community and tools, and of course many of its 
community are also part of openEHR, and vice versa.

If one takes a high-level look at the many different globally-used 
representations of health data, it is easy to see that these two reference 
models are indeed very similar. Whilst near to the ground we can easily be 
tempted to focus on their minor differences, I believe it is of greater value 
to society and to our field if we can regard them - and champion them - as a 
mutually reinforcing pair of models.


The specification of archetypes is very mature, and during the revision we 
expect to upgrade to the latest AOM (which is 2.0). This part of the standard 
will also remain focused on a logical representation supporting archetype 
interchange.


As has been pointed out, AQL could in theory have been added to the standard, 
since it could “work" with 13606. However, another important imperative for a 
standard is that it has reached a sufficient level of maturity and stability. 
It was also felt important by the working groups of CEN and ISO that we do not 
introduce something very novel into this revision process. I did suggest that 
we consider adding a sixth part to the standard to support the distributed 
analysis of electronic health records (such as communicating queries). It was 
felt wiser, and I support this view, not to introduce something new to these 
five parts of the standard, but once it has finished its revision to propose a 
new work item to CEN and ISO on the querying of EHRs. AQL will inevitably be an 
important contribution to that new work item, and hopefully by the time we are 
ready for it the AQL specification will be very mature and there will be much 
more experience of its use, making it an ideal specification to standardise.


Thank you all for your excellent contributions in different areas of EHR 
representation, communication and implementation - to keep advancing our field 
and the quality of EHRs world wide.


With best wishes,

Dipak

Dipak Kalra
Clinical Professor of Health Informatics
Centre for Health Informatics and Multiprofessional Education
University College London

President, The EuroRec Institute
Honorary Consultant, The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London

On 26 Aug 2015, at 14:44, 

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Ian McNicoll]

Thanks Dipak,

A very clear and helpful statement of current and future intent. I too
agree that we should not focus negatively on the differences and that they
are mutually reinforcing but people do ask and it's important that we are
clear that while 13606 and openEHR share a number of tools, technologies,
philosophies and even people + good relationships), they are not currently
interchangeable or directly interoperable.

>From a high-level perspective they are indeed very similar but the detailed
differences do matter to implementers, and I think we need to be clear to
the market about these differences.

Thanks too for the perspective on AQL adoption - makes complete sense to me
in the 13606 context.

Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 26 August 2015 at 15:33, Kalra, Dipak  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> This is an interesting discussion, and I would like to stress the
> complementarity of the two.
>
> openEHR is, as others have said, an important consolidator of the
> state-of-the-art in best practices for the design of an electronic health
> record architecture, repositories and the underpinning of EHR systems. An
> important advantage is that it specifications are publicly accessible, and
> of course it has a vibrant community and a large number of tools to support
> its use.
>
> 13606 has always had a good relationship with openEHR, but is primarily
> intended to be an interface standard between heterogeneous EHR systems, and
> is therefore optimised for that purpose (e.g. for mappings), which means
> its reference model is definitely simpler. There are many countries and
> situations where it is essential to have a formal international standard in
> order for it to be acceptable as part of a national strategy. Some vendors
> have also indicated that they like the inevitable stability of a standard,
> which changes infrequently. 13606 also has a community and tools, and of
> course many of its community are also part of openEHR, and vice versa.
>
> If one takes a high-level look at the many different globally-used
> representations of health data, it is easy to see that these two reference
> models are indeed very similar. Whilst near to the ground we can easily be
> tempted to focus on their minor differences, I believe it is of greater
> value to society and to our field if we can regard them - and champion them
> - as a mutually reinforcing pair of models.
>
>
> The specification of archetypes is very mature, and during the revision we
> expect to upgrade to the latest AOM (which is 2.0). This part of the
> standard will also remain focused on a logical representation supporting
> archetype interchange.
>
>
> As has been pointed out, AQL could in theory have been added to the
> standard, since it could “work" with 13606. However, another important
> imperative for a standard is that it has reached a sufficient level of
> maturity and stability. It was also felt important by the working groups of
> CEN and ISO that we do not introduce something very novel into this
> revision process. I did suggest that we consider adding a sixth part to the
> standard to support the distributed analysis of electronic health records
> (such as communicating queries). It was felt wiser, and I support this
> view, not to introduce something new to these five parts of the standard,
> but once it has finished its revision to propose a new work item to CEN and
> ISO on the querying of EHRs. AQL will inevitably be an important
> contribution to that new work item, and hopefully by the time we are ready
> for it the AQL specification will be very mature and there will be much
> more experience of its use, making it an ideal specification to standardise.
>
>
> Thank you all for your excellent contributions in different areas of EHR
> representation, communication and implementation - to keep advancing our
> field and the quality of EHRs world wide.
>
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Dipak
> 
> Dipak Kalra
> Clinical Professor of Health Informatics
> Centre for Health Informatics and Multiprofessional Education
> University College London
>
> President, The EuroRec Institute
> Honorary Consultant, The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London
>
> On 26 Aug 2015, at 14:44, Ian McNicoll  wrote:
>
> Hi Bert,
>
> "I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and
> every system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL."
>
> That is fair enough but we were asked to characterise the differences
> between 13606 and openEHR and I am comfortable that the actual and formal
> adoption of AQL is one of those  differences.
>
> AQL is on the openEHR specifications roadmap but AFAIK this is not

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Ian McNicoll]

Hi Gerard,

Agreed - I was using messaging loosely - 'interfacing between systems' is
better.

Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 26 August 2015 at 15:04, "Gerard Freriks (privé)"  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I must repeat the scope of 13606 verbatim once more.
> It is NOT only for messaging but also for *Interfaces*
>
>
>
> Gerard Freriks
> +31 620347088
> gf...@luna.nl
>
>
>
>
>1. *Scope*
>
> *This standard is for the communication of part or all of the electronic
> health record (EHR) of a single identified subject of care between EHR
> systems, or between EHR systems and a centralised EHR data repository. *
>
> *It may also be used for EHR communication between an EHR system or
> repository and clinical applications or middleware components (such as
> decision support components) that need to access or provide EHR data. *
>
> *This standard will predominantly be used to support the direct care given
> to identifiable individuals, or to support population monitoring systems
> such as disease registries and public health surveillance. Uses of health
> records for other purposes such as teaching, clinical audit, administration
> and reporting, service management, research and epidemiology, which often
> require anonymisation or aggregation of individual records, are not the
> focus of this standard but such secondary uses might also find the standard
> useful. *
>
> *This Part 1 of the multipart standard is an Information Viewpoint
> specification as defined by the Open Distributed Processing – Reference
> model (ISO/IEC 10746). This standard is not intended to specify the
> internal architecture or database design of EHR systems. *
>
>
>
>
>
> On 26 aug. 2015, at 14:57, Sebastian Garde <
> sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com> wrote:
>
> I'd agree with Ian here.
> While both could possibly support AQL, the difference I see is in intent,
> scope and actual implementation.
> As Gerard says, 13606's main aim is to communicate between IT-systems and
> for this, AQL may not be quite as fundamental as it is to openEHR.
>
> Sebastian
>
>
> On 26.08.2015 14:44, Ian McNicoll wrote:
>
> Hi Bert,
>
> "I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and
> every system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL."
>
> That is fair enough but we were asked to characterise the differences
> between 13606 and openEHR and I am comfortable that the actual and formal
> adoption of AQL is one of those  differences.
>
> AQL is on the openEHR specifications roadmap but AFAIK this is not the
> case for 13606. Of course that does not stop 13606 vendors implementing AQL
> but in terms of actual differences between the 2 communities the adoption,
> or intention to adopt AQL seems (from the outside) somewhat different both
> at a practical and formal level.
>
> Although AQL adoption in the openEHR community is far from universal, most
> of the vendors/developers that I have spoken to see it as something they
> want to implement, particularly as GDL is somewhat dependent on AQL.
>
> I am just trying to ascertain if there is similar enthusiasm/intention
> amongst 13606 vendors, or if AQL forms part of the current 13606 refresh
> discussions.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> office +44 (0)1536 414994
> skype: ianmcnicoll
> email: i...@freshehr.com
> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>
> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation  
> ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
> On 26 August 2015 at 13:28, Bert Verhees  wrote:
>
>> On 26-08-15 14:23, Ian McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>> but am not aware of any non-openEHR
>>> implementations
>>>
>> Is there a Xhosa implementation of 13606 or OpenEHR?
>>
>> Does that mean OpenEHR or 13606 are not able to support Xhosa?
>>
>> I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and
>> every system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing 
> listopenEHR-technical@lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
>
> --
>
> *Dr. Sebastian Garde*
> *Dr. sc. hum., Dipl.-Inform. Med, FACHI*
> Ocean Informatics
>
> Skype: gardeseb
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo] 
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com 

RE: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[pablo pazos]

Dear Gerard, IMO "communication" includes the interfaces, I didn't excluded 
them :D

-- 
Kind regards,
Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
http://cabolabs.com

Subject: Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606
From: gf...@luna.nl
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:03:18 +0200
To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org

Dear Pablo,
According to the scope statement: the 13606 is for the creation of the 
EHR-EXtract for communication between IT-systemsandfor the definition of the 
Information Viewpoint in Interfaces with system services.
Gerard

Gerard Freriks+31 620347088gf...@luna.nl


On 26 aug. 2015, at 13:50, pazospa...@hotmail.com wrote:





Hi, 
I would say that the main difference is that 13606 is for data communication 
and openEHR is for EHR architecture, both based on archerypes.
For detailed differences just look at both information models, you will see 
that 13606 IM is much simple.
About the specs, 13606 has 5 "chapters", including communication and security, 
and openEHR specs don't have those.
The best way of knowing the differences is just to download the specs of both 
and compare them.
Hope that helps,Cheers,Pablo.
Sent from my LG Mobile


-- Original message--From: 王海生Date: Wed, Aug 26, 2015 06:14To: 
openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org;Subject:difference and relationship between 
openEHR and EN13606dear all ,
how could i  explain to someone difference and relationship between openEHR 
and EN13606 
thx 
--
王海生15901958021


夏日畅销榜大牌美妆只要1元___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org   
  ___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Kalra, Dipak]

Dear All,

This is an interesting discussion, and I would like to stress the 
complementarity of the two.

openEHR is, as others have said, an important consolidator of the 
state-of-the-art in best practices for the design of an electronic health 
record architecture, repositories and the underpinning of EHR systems. An 
important advantage is that it specifications are publicly accessible, and of 
course it has a vibrant community and a large number of tools to support its 
use.

13606 has always had a good relationship with openEHR, but is primarily 
intended to be an interface standard between heterogeneous EHR systems, and is 
therefore optimised for that purpose (e.g. for mappings), which means its 
reference model is definitely simpler. There are many countries and situations 
where it is essential to have a formal international standard in order for it 
to be acceptable as part of a national strategy. Some vendors have also 
indicated that they like the inevitable stability of a standard, which changes 
infrequently. 13606 also has a community and tools, and of course many of its 
community are also part of openEHR, and vice versa.

If one takes a high-level look at the many different globally-used 
representations of health data, it is easy to see that these two reference 
models are indeed very similar. Whilst near to the ground we can easily be 
tempted to focus on their minor differences, I believe it is of greater value 
to society and to our field if we can regard them - and champion them - as a 
mutually reinforcing pair of models.


The specification of archetypes is very mature, and during the revision we 
expect to upgrade to the latest AOM (which is 2.0). This part of the standard 
will also remain focused on a logical representation supporting archetype 
interchange.


As has been pointed out, AQL could in theory have been added to the standard, 
since it could “work" with 13606. However, another important imperative for a 
standard is that it has reached a sufficient level of maturity and stability. 
It was also felt important by the working groups of CEN and ISO that we do not 
introduce something very novel into this revision process. I did suggest that 
we consider adding a sixth part to the standard to support the distributed 
analysis of electronic health records (such as communicating queries). It was 
felt wiser, and I support this view, not to introduce something new to these 
five parts of the standard, but once it has finished its revision to propose a 
new work item to CEN and ISO on the querying of EHRs. AQL will inevitably be an 
important contribution to that new work item, and hopefully by the time we are 
ready for it the AQL specification will be very mature and there will be much 
more experience of its use, making it an ideal specification to standardise.


Thank you all for your excellent contributions in different areas of EHR 
representation, communication and implementation - to keep advancing our field 
and the quality of EHRs world wide.


With best wishes,

Dipak

Dipak Kalra
Clinical Professor of Health Informatics
Centre for Health Informatics and Multiprofessional Education
University College London

President, The EuroRec Institute
Honorary Consultant, The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London

On 26 Aug 2015, at 14:44, Ian McNicoll 
mailto:i...@freshehr.com>> wrote:

Hi Bert,

"I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and every 
system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL."

That is fair enough but we were asked to characterise the differences between 
13606 and openEHR and I am comfortable that the actual and formal adoption of 
AQL is one of those  differences.

AQL is on the openEHR specifications roadmap but AFAIK this is not the case for 
13606. Of course that does not stop 13606 vendors implementing AQL but in terms 
of actual differences between the 2 communities the adoption, or intention to 
adopt AQL seems (from the outside) somewhat different both at a practical and 
formal level.

Although AQL adoption in the openEHR community is far from universal, most of 
the vendors/developers that I have spoken to see it as something they want to 
implement, particularly as GDL is somewhat dependent on AQL.

I am just trying to ascertain if there is similar enthusiasm/intention amongst 
13606 vendors, or if AQL forms part of the current 13606 refresh discussions.

Ian




Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

[https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0BzLo3mNUvbAjT2R5Sm1DdFZYTU0&export=download]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 26 August 2015 at 13:28, Bert Verhees 
mailto:bert.

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Gerard Freriks (privé)]

Hi,

I must repeat the scope of 13606 verbatim once more.
It is NOT only for messaging but also for Interfaces



Gerard Freriks
+31 620347088
gf...@luna.nl 



Scope
This standard is for the communication of part or all of the electronic health 
record (EHR) of a single identified subject of care between EHR systems, or 
between EHR systems and a centralised EHR data repository. 

It may also be used for EHR communication between an EHR system or repository 
and clinical applications or middleware components (such as decision support 
components) that need to access or provide EHR data. 

This standard will predominantly be used to support the direct care given to 
identifiable individuals, or to support population monitoring systems such as 
disease registries and public health surveillance. Uses of health records for 
other purposes such as teaching, clinical audit, administration and reporting, 
service management, research and epidemiology, which often require 
anonymisation or aggregation of individual records, are not the focus of this 
standard but such secondary uses might also find the standard useful. 

This Part 1 of the multipart standard is an Information Viewpoint specification 
as defined by the Open Distributed Processing – Reference model (ISO/IEC 
10746). This standard is not intended to specify the internal architecture or 
database design of EHR systems. 






> On 26 aug. 2015, at 14:57, Sebastian Garde 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'd agree with Ian here. 
> While both could possibly support AQL, the difference I see is in intent, 
> scope and actual implementation.
> As Gerard says, 13606's main aim is to communicate between IT-systems and for 
> this, AQL may not be quite as fundamental as it is to openEHR.
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> 
> On 26.08.2015 14:44, Ian McNicoll wrote:
>> Hi Bert,
>> 
>> "I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and every 
>> system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL."
>> 
>> That is fair enough but we were asked to characterise the differences 
>> between 13606 and openEHR and I am comfortable that the actual and formal 
>> adoption of AQL is one of thosedifferences.
>> 
>> AQL is on the openEHR specifications roadmap but AFAIK this is not the case 
>> for 13606. Of course that does not stop 13606 vendors implementing AQL but 
>> in terms of actual differences between the 2 communities the adoption, or 
>> intention to adopt AQL seems (from the outside) somewhat different both at a 
>> practical and formal level.
>> 
>> Although AQL adoption in the openEHR community is far from universal, most 
>> of the vendors/developers that I have spoken to see it as something they 
>> want to implement, particularly as GDL is somewhat dependent on AQL.
>> 
>> I am just trying to ascertain if there is similar enthusiasm/intention 
>> amongst 13606 vendors, or if AQL forms part of the current 13606 refresh 
>> discussions.
>> 
>> Ian
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dr Ian McNicoll
>> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
>> office +44 (0)1536 414994
>> skype: ianmcnicoll
>> email: i...@freshehr.com 
>> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>> 
>> 
>> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation  
>> ian.mcnic...@openehr.org 
>> 
>> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
>> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
>> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>> 
>> On 26 August 2015 at 13:28, Bert Verhees > > wrote:
>> On 26-08-15 14:23, Ian McNicoll wrote:
>> but am not aware of any non-openEHR
>> implementations
>> Is there a Xhosa implementation of 13606 or OpenEHR?
>> 
>> Does that mean OpenEHR or 13606 are not able to support Xhosa?
>> 
>> I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and every 
>> system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL.
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org 
>> 
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org 
>> 
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>  
>> 
> -- 
>  
> Dr. Sebastian Garde
> Dr. sc. hum., Dipl.-Inform. Med, FACHI
> Ocean Informatics
> 
> Skype: gardeseb
> 
> 
>      
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. 
> www.avast.com 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.op

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Bert Verhees]

On 26-08-15 14:57, Sebastian Garde wrote:

AQL may not be quite as fundamental as it is to openEHR.

How about filtering messages?

Messaging is a process, in the cloud it will become very important, it 
will become more then two system interchanging information.
It doesn't matter were your medical data are, but how they come to you 
matters, and I can imagine usecases for filtering.


(just a quick example)

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Bert Verhees]

On 26-08-15 14:44, Ian McNicoll wrote:

That is fair enough but we were asked to characterise the differences
between 13606 and openEHR and I am comfortable that the actual and formal
adoption of AQL is one of those  differences.
If you see it from the formal point of specifications, you are right, 
but as you say, ISO13606 is in a renewal process, and it is hard to 
foresee what will come out of that.
You write yourself that support for ADL/AOM 2.0 is being considered, I 
am very happy to read that.

Then it is a small step to AQL based on AOM 2.0 adoption.

I couldn't think of a strong reason why they should not adopt AQL when 
they adopt AOM2.0.


Untill now, there has only been AOM 1.4, also for OpenEHR, and the AQL 
for AOM 1.4 has always been a moving target.
That is why I never implemented it, but also because I did not really 
need it.
So we could say, that there is no formal specification for AQL based on 
AOM 1.4 and that OpenEHR, technically said, like ISO13606, does not 
support AQL.





___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Sebastian Garde]

I'd agree with Ian here.
While both could possibly support AQL, the difference I see is in
intent, scope and actual implementation.
As Gerard says, 13606's main aim is to communicate between IT-systems
and for this, AQL may not be quite as fundamental as it is to openEHR.

Sebastian


On 26.08.2015 14:44, Ian McNicoll wrote:

Hi Bert,

"I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and
every system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL."

That is fair enough but we were asked to characterise the differences
between 13606 and openEHR and I am comfortable that the actual and
formal adoption of AQL is one of those  differences.

AQL is on the openEHR specifications roadmap but AFAIK this is not the
case for 13606. Of course that does not stop 13606 vendors
implementing AQL but in terms of actual differences between the 2
communities the adoption, or intention to adopt AQL seems (from the
outside) somewhat different both at a practical and formal level.

Although AQL adoption in the openEHR community is far from universal,
most of the vendors/developers that I have spoken to see it as
something they want to implement, particularly as GDL is somewhat
dependent on AQL.

I am just trying to ascertain if there is similar enthusiasm/intention
amongst 13606 vendors, or if AQL forms part of the current 13606
refresh discussions.

Ian




Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com 
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org

Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 26 August 2015 at 13:28, Bert Verhees mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>> wrote:

On 26-08-15 14:23, Ian McNicoll wrote:

but am not aware of any non-openEHR
implementations

Is there a Xhosa implementation of 13606 or OpenEHR?

Does that mean OpenEHR or 13606 are not able to support Xhosa?

I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language,
and every system which is build on archetypes is able to implement
AQL.


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org


http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org




___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


--
*Dr. Sebastian Garde*
/Dr. sc. hum., Dipl.-Inform. Med, FACHI/
Ocean Informatics

Skype: gardeseb


---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Ian McNicoll]

Hi Bert,

"I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and every
system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL."

That is fair enough but we were asked to characterise the differences
between 13606 and openEHR and I am comfortable that the actual and formal
adoption of AQL is one of those  differences.

AQL is on the openEHR specifications roadmap but AFAIK this is not the case
for 13606. Of course that does not stop 13606 vendors implementing AQL but
in terms of actual differences between the 2 communities the adoption, or
intention to adopt AQL seems (from the outside) somewhat different both at
a practical and formal level.

Although AQL adoption in the openEHR community is far from universal, most
of the vendors/developers that I have spoken to see it as something they
want to implement, particularly as GDL is somewhat dependent on AQL.

I am just trying to ascertain if there is similar enthusiasm/intention
amongst 13606 vendors, or if AQL forms part of the current 13606 refresh
discussions.

Ian




Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 26 August 2015 at 13:28, Bert Verhees  wrote:

> On 26-08-15 14:23, Ian McNicoll wrote:
>
>> but am not aware of any non-openEHR
>> implementations
>>
> Is there a Xhosa implementation of 13606 or OpenEHR?
>
> Does that mean OpenEHR or 13606 are not able to support Xhosa?
>
> I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and every
> system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL.
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Bert Verhees]

On 26-08-15 14:23, Ian McNicoll wrote:

but am not aware of any non-openEHR
implementations

Is there a Xhosa implementation of 13606 or OpenEHR?

Does that mean OpenEHR or 13606 are not able to support Xhosa?

I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and 
every system which is build on archetypes is able to implement AQL.


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Ian McNicoll]

It is definitely on the openEHR Specifications Roadmap. That was a clear
decision at the Oslo meeting a year ago. There are at least 3
implementations that I know of and more back-end vendors are intending to
implement but I know what you mean 'technically';)

I agree that AQL is RM agnostic but am not aware of any non-openEHR
implementations @Diego/ Gerard??

Ian





Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 26 August 2015 at 13:12, Seref Arikan 
wrote:

> Well, technically, it is not part of the openEHR scope either. Happy to be
> corrected :)
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Ian McNicoll  wrote:
>
>> Hi Diego,
>>
>> I was not aware of any 13606 implementations that support AQL , although
>> I am sure there is some sort of path-based querying. AFAIK AQL is not part
>> of the 13606 scope.
>>
>> Happy to be corrected.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> Dr Ian McNicoll
>> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
>> office +44 (0)1536 414994
>> skype: ianmcnicoll
>> email: i...@freshehr.com
>> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>>
>> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
>> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
>> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
>> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>>
>> On 26 August 2015 at 13:03, Diego Boscá  wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with most of the points, but I'm curious why you say that 13606
>>> does not support AQL (and in any case wouldn't be "AQL does not support
>>> 13606"?)
>>>
>>> 2015-08-26 12:32 GMT+02:00 Ian McNicoll :
>>>
 This might help a little


 http://www.slideshare.net/atalagk/implementation-and-use-of-iso-en-13606-and-openehr

 Similarities:

 Both use archetypes and ADL and two-level information modelling.
 Both share the EHR, FOLDERS,COMPOSITIONS, ENTRY, ELEMENT classes.
 Some archetype tools can work with both styles of archetype e.g LinkEHR
 and Archetype Workbench.
 The just announced ADL2 Archetype editor/ template designer tools
 (beware!!! Early developer versions!!)

 http://ehrscape.marand.si/designer/template-editor.html

 http://ehrscape.marand.si/designer/archetype-editor.html

 should be relatively easy to adapt to 13606 or other archetype-based
 reference models such as CIMI. They will be open sourced very soon.

 Differences:

 The EHR reference models are different
  In spite of sharing the classes above, the attributes within those
 classes differ
  openEHR sub-classes ENTRY into ADMIN_ENTRY, OBSERVATION, EVALUATION,
 INSTRUCTION and ACTION
  The datatypes are different

 The demographic models are different
 The EHR Extract formats are different

 13606 is intended primarily for the communication of EHR extracts
 across systems but some persistence repositories exist.
 openEHR is intended primarily for data persistence and querying within
 systems but it is possible to message openEHR data.

 13606 does not (currently) support templates but ADL/AOM2 is being
 considered
 13606 does not support AQL Archetype Query Language

 13606 is  formal ISO standard but is closed source i.e. behind a
 paywall, as in normal for ISO published material
 openEHR is open source and freely available

 There is a great deal of cross-communication between the two
 communities and a number of people work with both formalisms. It is
 possible to transform data between the two formalisms but they are not
 directly compatible.

 I hope that is accurate and non-contentious!

 Ian





 Dr Ian McNicoll
 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
 office +44 (0)1536 414994
 skype: ianmcnicoll
 email: i...@freshehr.com
 twitter: @ianmcnicoll

 Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
 Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
 Director, HANDIHealth CIC
 Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

 On 26 August 2015 at 10:14, 王海生  wrote:

> dear all ,
> how could i  explain to someone difference and relationship
> between openEHR and EN13606
> thx
> --
> 王海生
> 15901958021
>
>
>
> 夏日畅销榜大牌美妆只要1元
> 
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>


 ___
 openEHR-technical mai

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Seref Arikan]

Well, technically, it is not part of the openEHR scope either. Happy to be
corrected :)

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Ian McNicoll  wrote:

> Hi Diego,
>
> I was not aware of any 13606 implementations that support AQL , although I
> am sure there is some sort of path-based querying. AFAIK AQL is not part of
> the 13606 scope.
>
> Happy to be corrected.
>
> Ian
>
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> office +44 (0)1536 414994
> skype: ianmcnicoll
> email: i...@freshehr.com
> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>
> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
> On 26 August 2015 at 13:03, Diego Boscá  wrote:
>
>> I agree with most of the points, but I'm curious why you say that 13606
>> does not support AQL (and in any case wouldn't be "AQL does not support
>> 13606"?)
>>
>> 2015-08-26 12:32 GMT+02:00 Ian McNicoll :
>>
>>> This might help a little
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.slideshare.net/atalagk/implementation-and-use-of-iso-en-13606-and-openehr
>>>
>>> Similarities:
>>>
>>> Both use archetypes and ADL and two-level information modelling.
>>> Both share the EHR, FOLDERS,COMPOSITIONS, ENTRY, ELEMENT classes.
>>> Some archetype tools can work with both styles of archetype e.g LinkEHR
>>> and Archetype Workbench.
>>> The just announced ADL2 Archetype editor/ template designer tools
>>> (beware!!! Early developer versions!!)
>>>
>>> http://ehrscape.marand.si/designer/template-editor.html
>>>
>>> http://ehrscape.marand.si/designer/archetype-editor.html
>>>
>>> should be relatively easy to adapt to 13606 or other archetype-based
>>> reference models such as CIMI. They will be open sourced very soon.
>>>
>>> Differences:
>>>
>>> The EHR reference models are different
>>>  In spite of sharing the classes above, the attributes within those
>>> classes differ
>>>  openEHR sub-classes ENTRY into ADMIN_ENTRY, OBSERVATION, EVALUATION,
>>> INSTRUCTION and ACTION
>>>  The datatypes are different
>>>
>>> The demographic models are different
>>> The EHR Extract formats are different
>>>
>>> 13606 is intended primarily for the communication of EHR extracts across
>>> systems but some persistence repositories exist.
>>> openEHR is intended primarily for data persistence and querying within
>>> systems but it is possible to message openEHR data.
>>>
>>> 13606 does not (currently) support templates but ADL/AOM2 is being
>>> considered
>>> 13606 does not support AQL Archetype Query Language
>>>
>>> 13606 is  formal ISO standard but is closed source i.e. behind a
>>> paywall, as in normal for ISO published material
>>> openEHR is open source and freely available
>>>
>>> There is a great deal of cross-communication between the two communities
>>> and a number of people work with both formalisms. It is possible to
>>> transform data between the two formalisms but they are not directly
>>> compatible.
>>>
>>> I hope that is accurate and non-contentious!
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr Ian McNicoll
>>> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
>>> office +44 (0)1536 414994
>>> skype: ianmcnicoll
>>> email: i...@freshehr.com
>>> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>>>
>>> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
>>> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
>>> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
>>> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>>>
>>> On 26 August 2015 at 10:14, 王海生  wrote:
>>>
 dear all ,
 how could i  explain to someone difference and relationship between
 openEHR and EN13606
 thx
 --
 王海生
 15901958021



 夏日畅销榜大牌美妆只要1元
 

 ___
 openEHR-technical mailing list
 openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org

 http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Ian McNicoll]

Hi Diego,

I was not aware of any 13606 implementations that support AQL , although I
am sure there is some sort of path-based querying. AFAIK AQL is not part of
the 13606 scope.

Happy to be corrected.

Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 26 August 2015 at 13:03, Diego Boscá  wrote:

> I agree with most of the points, but I'm curious why you say that 13606
> does not support AQL (and in any case wouldn't be "AQL does not support
> 13606"?)
>
> 2015-08-26 12:32 GMT+02:00 Ian McNicoll :
>
>> This might help a little
>>
>>
>> http://www.slideshare.net/atalagk/implementation-and-use-of-iso-en-13606-and-openehr
>>
>> Similarities:
>>
>> Both use archetypes and ADL and two-level information modelling.
>> Both share the EHR, FOLDERS,COMPOSITIONS, ENTRY, ELEMENT classes.
>> Some archetype tools can work with both styles of archetype e.g LinkEHR
>> and Archetype Workbench.
>> The just announced ADL2 Archetype editor/ template designer tools
>> (beware!!! Early developer versions!!)
>>
>> http://ehrscape.marand.si/designer/template-editor.html
>>
>> http://ehrscape.marand.si/designer/archetype-editor.html
>>
>> should be relatively easy to adapt to 13606 or other archetype-based
>> reference models such as CIMI. They will be open sourced very soon.
>>
>> Differences:
>>
>> The EHR reference models are different
>>  In spite of sharing the classes above, the attributes within those
>> classes differ
>>  openEHR sub-classes ENTRY into ADMIN_ENTRY, OBSERVATION, EVALUATION,
>> INSTRUCTION and ACTION
>>  The datatypes are different
>>
>> The demographic models are different
>> The EHR Extract formats are different
>>
>> 13606 is intended primarily for the communication of EHR extracts across
>> systems but some persistence repositories exist.
>> openEHR is intended primarily for data persistence and querying within
>> systems but it is possible to message openEHR data.
>>
>> 13606 does not (currently) support templates but ADL/AOM2 is being
>> considered
>> 13606 does not support AQL Archetype Query Language
>>
>> 13606 is  formal ISO standard but is closed source i.e. behind a paywall,
>> as in normal for ISO published material
>> openEHR is open source and freely available
>>
>> There is a great deal of cross-communication between the two communities
>> and a number of people work with both formalisms. It is possible to
>> transform data between the two formalisms but they are not directly
>> compatible.
>>
>> I hope that is accurate and non-contentious!
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Ian McNicoll
>> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
>> office +44 (0)1536 414994
>> skype: ianmcnicoll
>> email: i...@freshehr.com
>> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>>
>> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
>> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
>> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
>> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>>
>> On 26 August 2015 at 10:14, 王海生  wrote:
>>
>>> dear all ,
>>> how could i  explain to someone difference and relationship between
>>> openEHR and EN13606
>>> thx
>>> --
>>> 王海生
>>> 15901958021
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 夏日畅销榜大牌美妆只要1元
>>> 
>>>
>>> ___
>>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Bert Verhees]

On 26-08-15 14:03, Diego Boscá wrote:

I agree with most of the points, but I'm curious why you say that 13606
does not support AQL (and in any case wouldn't be "AQL does not support
13606"?)
Yes, that is a good question, I did not know that AQL was considered to 
be OpenEHR specific.
In my opinion it was a bound to the archetype model, not to the 
reference model.


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Diego Boscá]

I agree with most of the points, but I'm curious why you say that 13606
does not support AQL (and in any case wouldn't be "AQL does not support
13606"?)

2015-08-26 12:32 GMT+02:00 Ian McNicoll :

> This might help a little
>
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/atalagk/implementation-and-use-of-iso-en-13606-and-openehr
>
> Similarities:
>
> Both use archetypes and ADL and two-level information modelling.
> Both share the EHR, FOLDERS,COMPOSITIONS, ENTRY, ELEMENT classes.
> Some archetype tools can work with both styles of archetype e.g LinkEHR
> and Archetype Workbench.
> The just announced ADL2 Archetype editor/ template designer tools
> (beware!!! Early developer versions!!)
>
> http://ehrscape.marand.si/designer/template-editor.html
>
> http://ehrscape.marand.si/designer/archetype-editor.html
>
> should be relatively easy to adapt to 13606 or other archetype-based
> reference models such as CIMI. They will be open sourced very soon.
>
> Differences:
>
> The EHR reference models are different
>  In spite of sharing the classes above, the attributes within those
> classes differ
>  openEHR sub-classes ENTRY into ADMIN_ENTRY, OBSERVATION, EVALUATION,
> INSTRUCTION and ACTION
>  The datatypes are different
>
> The demographic models are different
> The EHR Extract formats are different
>
> 13606 is intended primarily for the communication of EHR extracts across
> systems but some persistence repositories exist.
> openEHR is intended primarily for data persistence and querying within
> systems but it is possible to message openEHR data.
>
> 13606 does not (currently) support templates but ADL/AOM2 is being
> considered
> 13606 does not support AQL Archetype Query Language
>
> 13606 is  formal ISO standard but is closed source i.e. behind a paywall,
> as in normal for ISO published material
> openEHR is open source and freely available
>
> There is a great deal of cross-communication between the two communities
> and a number of people work with both formalisms. It is possible to
> transform data between the two formalisms but they are not directly
> compatible.
>
> I hope that is accurate and non-contentious!
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr Ian McNicoll
> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
> office +44 (0)1536 414994
> skype: ianmcnicoll
> email: i...@freshehr.com
> twitter: @ianmcnicoll
>
> Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
> Director, HANDIHealth CIC
> Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
>
> On 26 August 2015 at 10:14, 王海生  wrote:
>
>> dear all ,
>> how could i  explain to someone difference and relationship between
>> openEHR and EN13606
>> thx
>> --
>> 王海生
>> 15901958021
>>
>>
>>
>> 夏日畅销榜大牌美妆只要1元
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Gerard Freriks (privé)]

Dear Pablo,

According to the scope statement: the 13606 is for the creation of the 
EHR-EXtract for communication between IT-systems
and
for the definition of the Information Viewpoint in Interfaces with system 
services.

Gerard

Gerard Freriks
+31 620347088
gf...@luna.nl 
> On 26 aug. 2015, at 13:50, pazospa...@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I would say that the main difference is that 13606 is for data communication 
> and openEHR is for EHR architecture, both based on archerypes.
> 
> For detailed differences just look at both information models, you will see 
> that 13606 IM is much simple.
> 
> About the specs, 13606 has 5 "chapters", including communication and 
> security, and openEHR specs don't have those.
> 
> The best way of knowing the differences is just to download the specs of both 
> and compare them.
> 
> Hope that helps,
> Cheers,
> Pablo.
> 
> Sent from my LG Mobile
> -- Original message--
> From: 王海生
> Date: Wed, Aug 26, 2015 06:14
> To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org 
> ;
> Subject:difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606
> dear all ,
> how could i  explain to someone difference and relationship between 
> openEHR and EN13606 
> thx 
> --
> 王海生
> 15901958021 
> 
> 
> 
> 夏日畅销榜大牌美妆只要1元 
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[pazospablo]

Hi, 
I would say that the main difference is that 13606 is for data communication 
and openEHR is for EHR architecture, both based on archerypes.
For detailed differences just look at both information models, you will see 
that 13606 IM is much simple.
About the specs, 13606 has 5 "chapters", including communication and security, 
and openEHR specs don't have those.
The best way of knowing the differences is just to download the specs of both 
and compare them.
Hope that helps,Cheers,Pablo.
Sent from my LG Mobile


-- Original message--From: 王海生Date: Wed, Aug 26, 2015 06:14To: 
openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org;Subject:difference and relationship between 
openEHR and EN13606dear all ,
    how could i  explain to someone difference and relationship between openEHR 
and EN13606 
thx 
--
王海生15901958021


夏日畅销榜大牌美妆只要1元___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Ian McNicoll]

See my earlier response. I think that is probably as official as you can
expect for now!!

13606 and openEHR share some aspects of their design, there are many formal
and informal links between the two communities e.g. Thomas Berale and I are
both invited experts to the 13606 group, and there are opportunities for
shared development especially  around tooling but 13606 and openEHR do need
to be regarded as two different solutions to different problems, with
different licensing and development/maintenance models.

Ian

Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 26 August 2015 at 10:57, 王海生  wrote:

> it says 2006 .as days go on ,if there is  any offical statements ,that
> will be great help
>
>
>
>
> --
> 王海生
> 15901958021
>
>
> At 2015-08-26 17:20:08, "Seref Arikan" 
> wrote:
>
> Maybe this would help:
> http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=950616334398351;res=IELHEA
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:14 AM, 王海生  wrote:
>
>> dear all ,
>> how could i  explain to someone difference and relationship between
>> openEHR and EN13606
>> thx
>> --
>> 王海生
>> 15901958021
>>
>>
>>
>> 夏日畅销榜大牌美妆只要1元
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> openEHR-technical mailing list
>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>>
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>>
>
>
>
> 夏日畅销榜大牌美妆只要1元
> 
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Ian McNicoll]

This might help a little

http://www.slideshare.net/atalagk/implementation-and-use-of-iso-en-13606-and-openehr

Similarities:

Both use archetypes and ADL and two-level information modelling.
Both share the EHR, FOLDERS,COMPOSITIONS, ENTRY, ELEMENT classes.
Some archetype tools can work with both styles of archetype e.g LinkEHR and
Archetype Workbench.
The just announced ADL2 Archetype editor/ template designer tools
(beware!!! Early developer versions!!)

http://ehrscape.marand.si/designer/template-editor.html

http://ehrscape.marand.si/designer/archetype-editor.html

should be relatively easy to adapt to 13606 or other archetype-based
reference models such as CIMI. They will be open sourced very soon.

Differences:

The EHR reference models are different
 In spite of sharing the classes above, the attributes within those classes
differ
 openEHR sub-classes ENTRY into ADMIN_ENTRY, OBSERVATION, EVALUATION,
INSTRUCTION and ACTION
 The datatypes are different

The demographic models are different
The EHR Extract formats are different

13606 is intended primarily for the communication of EHR extracts across
systems but some persistence repositories exist.
openEHR is intended primarily for data persistence and querying within
systems but it is possible to message openEHR data.

13606 does not (currently) support templates but ADL/AOM2 is being
considered
13606 does not support AQL Archetype Query Language

13606 is  formal ISO standard but is closed source i.e. behind a paywall,
as in normal for ISO published material
openEHR is open source and freely available

There is a great deal of cross-communication between the two communities
and a number of people work with both formalisms. It is possible to
transform data between the two formalisms but they are not directly
compatible.

I hope that is accurate and non-contentious!

Ian





Dr Ian McNicoll
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
office +44 (0)1536 414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd.
Director, HANDIHealth CIC
Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL

On 26 August 2015 at 10:14, 王海生  wrote:

> dear all ,
> how could i  explain to someone difference and relationship between
> openEHR and EN13606
> thx
> --
> 王海生
> 15901958021
>
>
>
> 夏日畅销榜大牌美妆只要1元
> 
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re:Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[王海生]

it says 2006 .as days go on ,if there is  any offical statements ,that will be 
great help





--

王海生
15901958021



At 2015-08-26 17:20:08, "Seref Arikan"  
wrote:

Maybe this would help:
http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=950616334398351;res=IELHEA 





On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:14 AM, 王海生  wrote:

dear all ,
how could i  explain to someone difference and relationship between openEHR 
and EN13606

thx

--

王海生
15901958021





夏日畅销榜大牌美妆只要1元

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[Seref Arikan]

Maybe this would help:
http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=950616334398351;res=IELHEA


On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:14 AM, 王海生  wrote:

> dear all ,
> how could i  explain to someone difference and relationship between
> openEHR and EN13606
> thx
> --
> 王海生
> 15901958021
>
>
>
> 夏日畅销榜大牌美妆只要1元
> 
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

[王海生]

dear all ,
how could i  explain to someone difference and relationship between openEHR 
and EN13606

thx

--

王海生
15901958021

___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org