subject:"Re\: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606"



How many in this community, in the past, were on this mailing-list for 
their school or university.?
For me, I don't care, homework or other work. We are all learning and 
work in the school of life.



See the very interesting discussion he/she initiated.

___
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


On 28-08-15 07:54, Seref Arikan wrote:

Sorry, but I have to ask: are you doing a homework?


This sounds like an accusation (the Sorry, I have to ask-part). Then I 
don't understand the point.


How many in this community, in the past, were on this mailing-list for 
their school or university.?
For me, I don't care, homework or other work. We are all learning and 
work in the school of life.



___
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


On 27-08-15 19:54, Thomas Beale wrote:
I would suggest that CIMI has been simiplified to the point of not 
being directly usable as an RM by openEHR or 13606 - most of the 
needed context information is gone in CIMI, and it doesn't distinguish 
any kind of 'Entry' or clinical statement.


Are you saying, that the context information from the reference model is 
not used?




This was a conscious choice in the CIMI community, designed to get 
buy-in from a much wider range of stakeholders than openEHR or 13606 
deals with. Technically, the CIMI approach is to soft-model nearly 
everything in 'reference archetypes'.


and the archetypes fill in the missing reference model context parts?

If so, then this makes the two level modeling approach, of course, much 
more flexible, a kind of new database approach/technique, usable for 
virtual anything.


Sorry if I misunderstand you.

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

If no one else is volunteering, I can do it over a month or so. I am 
really quite busy and under time-pressure at this moment


Bert

On 28-08-15 13:00, Ian McNicoll wrote:

Edwin has been around here for a while.

I think the suggestion of creating a wiki page based on this 
discussion (and updating Erik's StackOverflow page) is worthwhile. It 
is question that is commonly asked and a single summary would be helpful.


Any volunteers?

Ian

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

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

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

On 28 August 2015 at 07:46, Bert Verhees bert.verh...@rosa.nl 
mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl wrote:



How many in this community, in the past, were on this
mailing-list for their school or university.?
For me, I don't care, homework or other work. We are all
learning and work in the school of life.

See the very interesting discussion he/she initiated.


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

2015-08-28 Thread Ian McNicoll

Edwin has been around here for a while.

I think the suggestion of creating a wiki page based on this discussion
(and updating Erik's StackOverflow page) is worthwhile. It is question that
is commonly asked and a single summary would be helpful.

Any volunteers?

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 28 August 2015 at 07:46, Bert Verhees bert.verh...@rosa.nl wrote:


 How many in this community, in the past, were on this mailing-list for
 their school or university.?
 For me, I don't care, homework or other work. We are all learning and
 work in the school of life.

 See the very interesting discussion he/she initiated.


 ___
 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

2015-08-28 Thread Thomas Beale

Hi Bert,

On 28/08/2015 16:32, Bert Verhees wrote:

On 27-08-15 19:54, Thomas Beale wrote:
I would suggest that CIMI has been simiplified to the point of not
being directly usable as an RM by openEHR or 13606 - most of the
needed context information is gone in CIMI, and it doesn't
distinguish any kind of 'Entry' or clinical statement.

Are you saying, that the context information from the reference model
is not used?

the CIMI RM
https://github.com/opencimi/rm/blob/master/model/Release-3.0.4/BMM/CIMI-RM-3.0.4-generated-from-UML.bmm#has
no context information in it.

This was a conscious choice in the CIMI community, designed to get
buy-in from a much wider range of stakeholders than openEHR or 13606
deals with. Technically, the CIMI approach is to soft-model nearly
everything in 'reference archetypes'.

and the archetypes fill in the missing reference model context parts?

that's the idea.

If so, then this makes the two level modeling approach, of course,
much more flexible, a kind of new database approach/technique, usable
for virtual anything.

it makes it more flexible in one sense, but also harder for implementers
- now they cannot know where even basic context like subject, times,
locations etc are - all that has to be obtained from archetypes. The
'flexibility' comes with a price...

What goes in any particular RM for some particular domain or industry
needs to be the result of careful analysis of

* the need for being able to build reliable software components that
can assume some things
* the need for a base model with enough useful primitives that it
doesn't force endless repeated modelling of the same basic concepts
in archetypes
* but sufficient flexibility so that all the variability of the
domain, and also localization can be accommodated.

It's a balancing act.

So far in openEHR, the context and most other structures etc have proven
to be good. We'll probably get rid of / simplify the ITEM_TREE stuff in
Release 1.1, but I can't imagine getting rid of most of the other semantics.

- thomas

___
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

I agree it is a balancing act in how far the semantics should be in the
RM or in the archetypes.

Both ways have their pro and contra.
Thanks for explaining it

Bert

On 28-08-15 19:17, Thomas Beale wrote:

Hi Bert,

On 28/08/2015 16:32, Bert Verhees wrote:

Are you saying, that the context information from the reference model
is not used?

the CIMI RM
https://github.com/opencimi/rm/blob/master/model/Release-3.0.4/BMM/CIMI-RM-3.0.4-generated-from-UML.bmm#has
no context information in it.

and the archetypes fill in the missing reference model context parts?

that's the idea.

If so, then this makes the two level modeling approach, of course,
much more flexible, a kind of new database approach/technique, usable
for virtual anything.

it makes it more flexible in one sense, but also harder for
implementers - now they cannot know where even basic context like
subject, times, locations etc are - all that has to be obtained from
archetypes. The 'flexibility' comes with a price...

What goes in any particular RM for some particular domain or industry
needs to be the result of careful analysis of

* the need for being able to build reliable software components that
can assume some things
* the need for a base model with enough useful primitives that it
doesn't force endless repeated modelling of the same basic
concepts in archetypes
* but sufficient flexibility so that all the variability of the
domain, and also localization can be accommodated.

It's a balancing act.

So far in openEHR, the context and most other structures etc have
proven to be good. We'll probably get rid of / simplify the ITEM_TREE
stuff in Release 1.1, but I can't imagine getting rid of most of the
other semantics.

- thomas

___
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


On 26/08/2015 13:08, Bert Verhees wrote:

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.


It's not. It's exactly the same no matter what the reference model. Of 
course, to properly check AQL queries and execute them in a specific 
environment, access to a representation of the RM being used will be needed.


- thomas

___
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


On 26/08/2015 16:46, 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?




I would suggest that CIMI has been simiplified to the point of not being 
directly usable as an RM by openEHR or 13606 - most of the needed 
context information is gone in CIMI, and it doesn't distinguish any kind 
of 'Entry' or clinical statement.


This was a conscious choice in the CIMI community, designed to get 
buy-in from a much wider range of stakeholders than openEHR or 13606 
deals with. Technically, the CIMI approach is to soft-model nearly 
everything in 'reference archetypes'.


- thomas
___
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



openEHR has an EHR Extract specification 
http://www.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/ehr_extract.htmlas well, 
which is more flexible than the 13606 one e.g. it can include 
information from more than one patient, and accommodates both openEHR 
and non-openEHR content.


- thomas

On 26/08/2015 12:50, 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.





___
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

2015-08-27 Thread Seref Arikan

Sorry, but I have to ask: are you doing a homework?

On Friday, 28 August 2015, 王海生 edwin_ue...@163.com wrote:

 could we just add  a page on openEHR website to illustrate these points
 thx


 --
 王海生
 15901958021


 在 2015-08-28 01:54:58，Thomas Beale thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com'); 写道：

 On 26/08/2015 16:46, 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?


 I would suggest that CIMI has been simiplified to the point of not being
 directly usable as an RM by openEHR or 13606 - most of the needed context
 information is gone in CIMI, and it doesn't distinguish any kind of 'Entry'
 or clinical statement.

 This was a conscious choice in the CIMI community, designed to get buy-in
 from a much wider range of stakeholders than openEHR or 13606 deals with.
 Technically, the CIMI approach is to soft-model nearly everything in
 'reference archetypes'.

 - thomas



 夏日畅销榜大牌美妆只要1元
 http://r.mail.163.com/r.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.163.com%2Fhd%2Foneact%2Fhdframe.do%3Fid%3D21%26from%3Dfooter_beautysign=817593681_r_ignore_statId=7_13_79_48_r_ignore_uid=n...@163.com

___
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


On 28/08/2015 10:03, 王海生 wrote:

could we just add  a page on openEHR website to illustrate these points
thx


if you search on the wiki 
https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/dosearchsite.action?queryString=13606, 
with either '13606' or 'CIMI' you will find a lot of material.


- thomas
___
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

2015-08-27 Thread Bert Verhees

Like the Ocean Archetype editor. It only supports the OpenEhr RM only. That
is understandable and no problem. The market will fill in that gap.
Op 27 aug. 2015 01:49 schreef Heath Frankel
heath.fran...@oceaninformatics.com:

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 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

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 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 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

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 edwin_ue...@163.com 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
http://r.mail.163.com/r.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.163.com%2Fhd%2Foneact%2Fhdframe.do%3Fid%3D21%26from%3Dfooter_beautysign=817593681_r_ignore_statId=7_13_79_48_r_ignore_uid=n...@163.com

___
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

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

2015-08-27 Thread Ian McNicoll

Presumably the outline syntax, SELECT, CONTAINS etc is generalisable?

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 27 August 2015 at 08:22, Bert Verhees bert.verh...@rosa.nl wrote:

Like the Ocean Archetype editor. It only supports the OpenEhr RM only.
That is understandable and no problem. The market will fill in that gap.
Op 27 aug. 2015 01:49 schreef Heath Frankel
heath.fran...@oceaninformatics.com:

Regards

Heath

On 26 Aug 2015, at 9:40 pm, Ian McNicoll 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

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 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 i...@freshehr.com:

This might help a little

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

Similarities:

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 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 edwin_ue...@163.com wrote:

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

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

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

___
openEHR-technical mailing list

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

2015-08-27 Thread Seref Arikan

All of it is very, very generalizable :)

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Ian McNicoll i...@freshehr.com wrote:

Presumably the outline syntax, SELECT, CONTAINS etc is generalisable?

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 27 August 2015 at 08:22, Bert Verhees bert.verh...@rosa.nl wrote:

Like the Ocean Archetype editor. It only supports the OpenEhr RM only.
That is understandable and no problem. The market will fill in that gap.
Op 27 aug. 2015 01:49 schreef Heath Frankel
heath.fran...@oceaninformatics.com:

Regards

Heath

On 26 Aug 2015, at 9:40 pm, Ian McNicoll 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

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 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 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 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 edwin_ue...@163.com wrote:

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

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

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

2015-08-26 Thread Erik Sundvall

By the way feel free to add some of the

onsdag 26 augusti 2015 skrev Erik Sundvall erik.sundv...@liu.se:

 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 d.ka...@ucl.ac.uk
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','d.ka...@ucl.ac.uk');:

 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 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

 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 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

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

2015-08-26 Thread 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 d.ka...@ucl.ac.uk:

 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 i...@freshehr.com
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','i...@freshehr.com');
 twitter: @ianmcnicoll

 Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 d.ka...@ucl.ac.uk
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

2015-08-26 Thread 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 erik.sundv...@liu.se:

By the way feel free to add some of the

onsdag 26 augusti 2015 skrev Erik Sundvall erik.sundv...@liu.se
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','erik.sundv...@liu.se');:

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 d.ka...@ucl.ac.uk:

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 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

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 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

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606


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

2015-08-26 Thread 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: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

2015-08-26 Thread 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 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

 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 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 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

 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 edwin_ue...@163.com 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
 http://r.mail.163.com/r.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.163.com%2Fhd%2Foneact%2Fhdframe.do%3Fid%3D21%26from%3Dfooter_beautysign=817593681_r_ignore_statId=7_13_79_48_r_ignore_uid=n...@163.com

 ___
 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

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 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

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

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 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 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

 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 edwin_ue...@163.com 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
 http://r.mail.163.com/r.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.163.com%2Fhd%2Foneact%2Fhdframe.do%3Fid%3D21%26from%3Dfooter_beautysign=817593681_r_ignore_statId=7_13_79_48_r_ignore_uid=n...@163.com

 ___
 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


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


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: Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

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 edwin_ue...@163.com 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 serefari...@kurumsalteknoloji.com
 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 edwin_ue...@163.com 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
 http://r.mail.163.com/r.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.163.com%2Fhd%2Foneact%2Fhdframe.do%3Fid%3D21%26from%3Dfooter_beautysign=817593681_r_ignore_statId=7_13_79_48_r_ignore_uid=n...@163.com

 ___
 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
 http://r.mail.163.com/r.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.163.com%2Fhd%2Foneact%2Fhdframe.do%3Fid%3D21%26from%3Dfooter_beautysign=817593681_r_ignore_statId=7_13_79_48_r_ignore_uid=n...@163.com

 ___
 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


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

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 mailto: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 
 mailto: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 tel:15901958021
 
 
 
 夏日畅销榜大牌美妆只要1元 
 http://r.mail.163.com/r.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.163.com%2Fhd%2Foneact%2Fhdframe.do%3Fid%3D21%26from%3Dfooter_beautysign=817593681_r_ignore_statId=7_13_79_48_r_ignore_uid=n...@163.com___
 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

2015-08-26 Thread 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 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

 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 edwin_ue...@163.com 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
 http://r.mail.163.com/r.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.163.com%2Fhd%2Foneact%2Fhdframe.do%3Fid%3D21%26from%3Dfooter_beautysign=817593681_r_ignore_statId=7_13_79_48_r_ignore_uid=n...@163.com

 ___
 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

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 serefari...@kurumsalteknoloji.com
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 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

 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 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 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

 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 edwin_ue...@163.com 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
 http://r.mail.163.com/r.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.163.com%2Fhd%2Foneact%2Fhdframe.do%3Fid%3D21%26from%3Dfooter_beautysign=817593681_r_ignore_statId=7_13_79_48_r_ignore_uid=n...@163.com

 ___
 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

2015-08-26 Thread 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 mailto:i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org
mailto: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 bert.verh...@rosa.nl
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
mailto: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

2015-08-26 Thread 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

2015-08-26 Thread 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 
i...@freshehr.commailto: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.commailto:i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

[https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0BzLo3mNUvbAjT2R5Sm1DdFZYTU0export=download]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
ian.mcnic...@openehr.orgmailto: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

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606


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

2015-08-26 Thread 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 edwin_ue...@163.com 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
 http://r.mail.163.com/r.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.163.com%2Fhd%2Foneact%2Fhdframe.do%3Fid%3D21%26from%3Dfooter_beautysign=817593681_r_ignore_statId=7_13_79_48_r_ignore_uid=n...@163.com

 ___
 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

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 edwin_ue...@163.com 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
 http://r.mail.163.com/r.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.163.com%2Fhd%2Foneact%2Fhdframe.do%3Fid%3D21%26from%3Dfooter_beautysign=817593681_r_ignore_statId=7_13_79_48_r_ignore_uid=n...@163.com

 ___
 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

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 mailto: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 
 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 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 mailto:i...@freshehr.com
 twitter: @ianmcnicoll
 
 
 Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation  
 mailto:ian.mcnic...@openehr.orgian.mcnic...@openehr.org 
 mailto: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 bert.verh...@rosa.nl 
 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 
 mailto:openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
 http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/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 
 mailto:openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
 http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/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
 
 
   https://www.avast.com/antivirus   
 Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. 
 www.avast.com 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

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) gf...@luna.nl 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
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 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
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] https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
www.avast.com https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
openEHR-technical mailing list

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

2015-08-26 Thread 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 
i...@freshehr.commailto: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.commailto:i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

[https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0BzLo3mNUvbAjT2R5Sm1DdFZYTU0export=download]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
ian.mcnic...@openehr.orgmailto: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? 
yamp...@gmail.commailto: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 
i...@freshehr.commailto: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 7859tel:%2B44%20%280%29775%20209%207859
office +44 (0)1536 414994tel:%2B44%20%280%291536%20414994
skype: ianmcnicoll
email: i...@freshehr.commailto:i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

[https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0BzLo3mNUvbAjT2R5Sm1DdFZYTU0export=download]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
ian.mcnic...@openehr.orgmailto: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, ??? 
edwin_ue...@163.commailto:edwin_ue...@163.com wrote:
dear all ,
how could i  explain to someone difference and relationship between openEHR 
and EN13606
thx
--
???
15901958021



???1?http://r.mail.163.com/r.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.163.com%2Fhd%2Foneact%2Fhdframe.do%3Fid%3D21%26from%3Dfooter_beautysign=817593681_r_ignore_statId=7_13_79_48_r_ignore_uid=n...@163.com

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


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


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

___
openEHR-technical mailing list

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

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 mailto:gf...@luna.nl
 On 26 aug. 2015, at 17:49, Erik Sundvall erik.sundv...@liu.se 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

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 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, Ian McNicoll 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

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

2015-08-26 Thread 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 
i...@freshehr.commailto: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.commailto:i...@freshehr.com
twitter: @ianmcnicoll

[https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0BzLo3mNUvbAjT2R5Sm1DdFZYTU0export=download]
Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation 
ian.mcnic...@openehr.orgmailto: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 
d.ka...@ucl.ac.ukmailto: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

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

We are in agreement, then.  :-)

Gerard Freriks
+31 620347088
gf...@luna.nl mailto:gf...@luna.nl
 On 26 aug. 2015, at 17:06, Ian McNicoll i...@freshehr.com 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 mailto:i...@freshehr.com
 twitter: @ianmcnicoll
 
 
 Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org 
 mailto: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) gf...@luna.nl 
 mailto:gf...@luna.nl 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 tel:%2B31%20620347088
 gf...@luna.nl mailto: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 
 sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com 
 mailto: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 tel:%2B44%20%280%29775%20209%207859
 office +44 (0)1536 414994 tel:%2B44%20%280%291536%20414994
 skype: ianmcnicoll
 email: i...@freshehr.com mailto:i...@freshehr.com
 twitter: @ianmcnicoll
 
 
 Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation  
 mailto:ian.mcnic...@openehr.orgian.mcnic...@openehr.org 
 mailto: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 bert.verh...@rosa.nl 
 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 
 mailto:openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
 http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606