In een bericht met de datum 12-9-2005 9:47:26 West-Europa (zomertijd), schrijft Thomas.Beale at OceanInformatics.biz:
Tom Beale wrote: > my concern here is that while you can "have what you want" by deleting > inconvenient attributes where you feel like it, cloning others, renaming > and so on, you are always in the business of building a new schema while > doing this. Every such exercise is a new schema. This is not a good > basis for building generic tools - neither to handle the clinical models > (which are effectively embedded in the RMIM level) nor the information. As answer to my point of using the Care Provision D-MIM to express clinical content. Here you have a point that changing the class names everytime, which I admit I am doing currently in the R-MIM / CMET / archetype / templates development, will not hold in the long run. For the time being it allows me to express / model what clinicians want. I will work however with Kai Heitmann to improve this approach so that against the HL7 v3 XML schema, a more pure archetype expression can be developed by means of keeping the proper class names and finding a solution for it via coding and using the attributes. I agree on the need of generic tools: so give me the tools that allows me to express the clinical content that can be exchanged between system in an international standardized matter. OpenEHR does not do this for me, HL7 v3 D-MIM does it for the time being. I wont to be independent of the technology, OpenEHR is not independent of technology, it forces to go in the -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20050912/d43f64b7/attachment.html>
