Hi Eric,
Op 19-jun-2008, om 7:18 heeft Erik Sundvall het volgende geschreven: > One of the arguments for the EN13606/openEHR approach is that deeper > semantic interoperability requires shared semantics at the point of > entry (not necessarily shared exactly entry user interface though). > Otherwise (if you allow any kind of semantics at the entry point) you > can not guarantee that semantic conversions between entry semantics > and message semantics are algorithmically solvable and thus > technically implementable in a patient safe manner. This is not > obvious to all messaging advocates if the main messages in mind are > traditionally well structured and fairly similar things such as lab > tests etc instead of arbitrary parts of an EHR that are usually > exchanged using faxed papers read by humans. Thanks. We're also looking for some pragmatic examples why 'deeper semantic interoperability' is beneficial to the decision makers and/or vendors. Thing is that most readers of this second document won''t be to much interested in the theory behind it. What I am looking for is something that has clear benefits, for example increased patient safety or improved efficacy through work flow management. Could this be done with legacy systems that exchange standardized messages or would that require information systems which can provide semantic interoperability. Cheers, Stef -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20080619/a110141f/attachment.html>
