Stefan Sauermann wrote: > > Gerard, > > This is fine, and I agree that the Archetypes/Templates solution is to > be preferred. > > However there is one fundamental weakness in it: It is based on the > assumption that everybody runs an archetype / Templates enabled > system. This is definitely not the case now. > > One of the major weaknesses of the ?Messaging solution? is that it > takes 3 years to get going: true. > > I guess we must accept the fact that an ?Archetypes/Templates > solution? might take even more than that. > > Greetings from Vienna, > > Stefan Sauermann > *Actually Stefan,
this is one of the big advantages of archetypes and templates - you can deploy the systems that use them on day one, and slowly grow your archetypes and templates over time. The system doesn't need changes (except possibly in the GUI). And in any case I would guess 2 more years international work will have created archetypes for 80% of medicine that you can just use. Also: a conversion framework to/from messages exists, based on the Template Data Schema, which will be offered to openEHR. Also: in the UK, where archetypes and templates are being used, no suppliers have openEHR-based systems. There are ways being developed to give templates to suppliers in a form they can directly use. I can guarantee we are completely realists here - there is no fantasy of doing greenfield systems. - thomas *
