Hi Tom, This looks good!
My only question here is that if BPv1 and BPv2 are not compatible, they are probably 2 different concepts. The idea to use concept as the identifier is fine. Using Snomed CT here would be excellent. then we can have openEHR-EHR-Observation-SnomendCTConceptNameSNomedCTconceptId87654321. If the concept is non existing in Snomed CT, there are procedures to ask for the addition. Due to fine grainedness of SNomed CT to a high level it is probably a lot that can be handled with this, also avoiding the same concept used for 2 different archetypes. I agree with the world wide management of this, but then again the ISO / CEN / HL7 / CDSIC DCM approach (IHTSDO invited) would be helpful. If we move this way and identify the concept as such, we can have the clinical material specified, modeled in different formats but DCM-Concept-conceptID, OpenEHR-Concept-ConceptID.adl, and HL7templateIDConcept-ConceptID.xml would be identified as clinically exactly the same information, but technically fitting to another reference information model and technology, each with the peculiarities necessary to have it work for purpose. Sincerely yours, dr. William TF Goossen director Results 4 Care b.v. De Stinse 15 3823 VM Amersfoort the Netherlands email: Results4Care at cs.com phone + 31654614458 fax +3133 2570169 www.results4care.nl Dutch Chamber of Commerce number: 32133713 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20081203/88ad706d/attachment.html>
