On 22/08/2012 08:56, Stefan Sauermann wrote: > Agree. > My preception is that the people in this community share a common > vision of doing this on the openEHR platform, within CKM. That is fine > and there is hope. > > I have the feeling, that the people in this community think in many > different usecases. We seem to be talking about different flavours of > similar things without explicitly stating which flavour is actually > meant. This makes harmonisation very hard. > > Would it be reasonable to establish usecases in order to promote more > focussed sub-discussions?
yes. I am looking into upgrading the wiki so it is better organised, and we can create a place to describe or refer to use cases. > > I am happy to engage in a "pathology report content" use case effort, > should anybody wish to join. > > On behalf of the national EHR effort we are running a group of users > and vendors, so we get heavy, national scale engagement from very high > ranking experts. I also have a contracted team here, supporting and > documenting the discussion into a guideline document. I would have to > check with the bosses, but I guess they might be nudged to agree that > we could also capture the results of our discussion into the tools you > suggest (if the effort is manageable). Austria is using CDA as > transport format but that is another issue. It does not keep us from > a useful technology-independent content discussion in this community. > > Of course we would need help from others who are more experienced in > the tools and philosophy of archetypes. > > This may also generate some input into the 13606 revision that is on > the move. hopefully! - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120822/53471922/attachment.html>
