>> The point is that you don't have to choose if you use generic kernel. > > that's also easy to do with reference models. There are many reference > models right here > <https://github.com/openEHR/reference-models/tree/master/models>, to > plug into a kernel.
Ah, I did not know about this. I am very pleased to see it. It fits in the kernel-design philosophy I favor. Thanks for the good work. I found, that there are still some basic rules to which a Reference Model must apply. One of the basic structural ideas of the kernel is that it must be patient/EHR (say Subject)) centric. Honouring this basic idea avoids having to write Reference Model-specific base structure code. > >> You can use multiple in archetypes-based reference models to validate >> and store and query data. You can allow certain parts of an >> healthcare organization, without any technical provision, to >> implement new ideas about medical data structures, maybe necessary >> for specific treatment. > > sure, but like I said, this is just the same problem moved up one > level. At some point, you still have to write classes with the > semantics of things like Observation or Composition or whatever. > Otherwise you can't get the data on the screen, or compute with it in > any meaningful way. I think this can be solved with templates and information which can be in the archetype-meta-data. Don't you agree? What am I missing? Bert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140626/2914dde9/attachment.html>
