Bert Verhees wrote:
And of course, good non-GUI-building archetype-editors which are still not
there, the complains I had about the both mainstream archetype-editors were
admitted, but the improvement did not yet come.
Hi Bert,
I remember that you described some inconsistencies on one of
I am always somewhat surprised as well. Thanks by the way for your
clarifying notes, that is exactly how I would summarise the discussions.
- thomas
On 07/04/2013 22:08, Randolph Neall wrote:
Hi Thomas,
I'm surprised that at this advanced stage of openEHR's maturity you'd
still have to
There is always a meta-architecture. It's just a question of whether
system builders are conscious of it.
Thomas, perhaps you don't intend humor, but gems like this are what make
reading your posts both enlightening and entertaining, even for someone at
my distance.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:06
[This is Tim again, initially bounced]
And that is the issue, and what is at the root of this dispute. Tim does not
see the point of specialization or redefinition, which, in my opinion, is
why he can hold forth so strongly for XML.
Randy Neall
You are mostly correct. It isn't that I
On 06/04/2013 23:50, Thomas Beale wrote:
[This is Tim again, initially bounced]
And that is the issue, and what is at the root of this dispute. Tim does not
see the point of specialization or redefinition, which, in my opinion, is
why he can hold forth so strongly for XML.
Randy Neall
You
On 06/04/2013 23:50, Thomas Beale wrote:
[This is Tim again, initially bounced]
And that is the issue, and what is at the root of this dispute. Tim does not
see the point of specialization or redefinition, which, in my opinion, is
why he can hold forth so strongly for XML.
Randy Neall
You
On 07/04/2013 00:35, Bert Verhees wrote:
That's expedient, but it's also a guarantee of non-interoperability.
As far as I can see, also from my experience, nor OpenEHR, nor MLHIM will be
the only datamodel system on the world. Cooperation with other systems will
always need a message-format.
On 07/04/2013 12:11, Grahame Grieve wrote:
Hi Tom
You ask:
Is there a better meta-architecture available?
When actually the question at hand appears to be: is it even worth
having one?
I don't think that this is a question with a technical answer. It's a
question of what you are
On 04/07/2013 10:40 AM, Thomas Beale wrote:
Is there a better meta-architecture available?
I think is a very good architecture, that is why I am using it, but
I(we) keep having to deal with people who think otherwise.
I am not smart enough to point out why HL7v3 messaging is good or bad,
or
On 05/04/2013 13:03, Thomas Beale wrote:
[original post by Tim bounced; reposting manually for him]
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Thomas Beale
thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote:
if you mean the competing inheritance models - I have yet to meet any XML
specialist who thinks
Hi Tim
There is no need for specialisation or redefinition in MLHIM. Concept
Constraint Definitions (CCDS) are immutable once published. In
conjunction with their included Reference Model version they endure in
order to remain as the model for that instance data. Unlike you, I
believe that the
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Thomas Beale
thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote:
[original post by Tim bounced; reposting manually for him]
Thanks Tom. I probably posted with the incorrect email address again.
Arrrgh, organizing the simple things is difficult.
--Tim
Cook: There is no need for specialisation or redefinition in MLHIM. Concept
Constraint Definitions (CCDS) are immutable once published. In
conjunction with their included Reference Model version they endure in
order to remain as the model for that instance data. Unlike you, I
believe that the
13 matches
Mail list logo
