Hi Tom You ask:
> Is there a better meta-architecture available? When actually the question at hand appears to be: is it even worth having one? I don't think that this is a question with a technical answer. It's a question of what you are trying to achieve. I've written about this here: http://www.healthintersections.com.au/?p=820 Grahame On Sunday, April 7, 2013, Thomas Beale wrote: > On 07/04/2013 00:35, Bert Verhees wrote: > > That's expedient, but it's also a guarantee of non-interoperability. > > As far as I can see, also from my experience, nor OpenEHR, nor MLHIM will be > the only datamodel system on the world. Cooperation with other systems will > always need a message-format. The same goes for other systems. Mapping will > always be (at least partly) done manually. > > The goal, what the customer wants, is not a solution, which dictates him to > throw away his system, but he wants connectivity in which his system can > participate. > > > > Hi Bert, > > that's obviously one thing customers want - data interoperability. But - > what do they want to do with the data? Let's say that want to have a > managed medication list, or run a query that identifies patients at risk of > hypertension, or the nursing software wants to graph the heart rate. Then > they need more - just being able to get the data isn't enough. You have to > be able to compute with it. That means standardising the meaning somehow. > > Now, each healthcare provider / vendor / solution producer could just > define their own 'content models'. Like they do today. Or we could try and > standardise on some of them. > > The openEHR way seems to me the one that can work: because it standardises > on the archetypes, which are a library of data points and data groups, it > means that anyone can write their own data set specification (template) > based on that. So you define what blood pressure looks like once (in the > archetype) and it gets used in 1000 places, in different ways. But - it's > guaranteed to be queryable by queries based on the archetype. > > That's the essence of the system - 3 modelling layers: > > - reference model - agree on the data > - archetypes - agree on the clinical data points and data groups - > this only needs to be done more or less once; queries are based on these > models > - templates - define localised / specific data sets using the > archetypes > > We're working on major improvements on the details in ADL 1.5, but I have > to admit I don't think of trying to change the ground rules. These three > logical levels are the minimum for data interoperability, content > standardisation, and local freedom. With specialisation and association > between models in the archetype and template layers, that's a lot of > freedom to customise. > > Is there a better meta-architecture available? > > - thomas > > > -- ----- http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame at healthintersections.com.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130413/f56ea4fe/attachment-0001.html>
