Hello eveybody! Looking at this discussion, the volume it is taking weighted against the visible progress I ask myself if this is an efficient way to reach harmonised conclusions.
In our experience doing the national EHR standards and the lab report for Austria we noticed: - Once you reach a sufficient level of detail it is not possible to reach generic (one fits all) solutions within available timeframes. - Data models and their descriptions only started to work after all involved had agreed on a specific, crisp and clear definition of the usecase. - No information model / description did work for all thinkable usecases. - We had to tailor information models to specific usecases. - Then bridging from one use case into the other becomes a challenge, as subtle differences in the information will become an issue. - In order to bridge information from one specific use case into the other we typically need to define another specific usecase. I do not see the specific usecases you are referring to. I therefore can not contribute to or understand this discussion. Maybe I missed something. Sorry! Greetings from Vienna, Stefan Sauermann Program Director Biomedical Engineering Sciences (Master) University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien Hoechstaedtplatz 5, 1200 Vienna, Austria P: +43 1 333 40 77 - 988 M: +43 664 6192555 E: stefan.sauermann at technikum-wien.at I: www.technikum-wien.at/mbe I: www.technikum-wien.at/ibmt I: www.healthy-interoperability.at Am 22.06.2012 09:29, schrieb Gerard Freriks: > Yes. > > It all is about classifying. > It is all about proper definitions we all share and use. > > I believe that when we all interpret the definitions in our own way in > our own data bases all is working nicely. > > The moment we start to exchange this data we will discover that we are > not interoperable, > The moment we start to re-use data in clinical decision support > service we will discover that all systems that worked so nicely, have > become problems to connect. > > As EN13606 we work at full semantic interoperability as much as possible. > So we have to define many things, we use to produce archetypes, properly. > Don't we all have an obligation to make semantic interoperability > possible? > > > Gerard Freriks > +31 620347088 > gfrer at luna.nl <mailto:gfrer at luna.nl> > > > > > On 22 Jun 2012, at 02:45, Jussara wrote: > >> Think the background of our discussions is about CLASSfying. >> >> Sent from my iPad > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120622/56aca071/attachment.html>
