Thomas Beale wrote: > Bert Verhees wrote: > >> >> Thanks, even it is not the same as CEN, it helps me understand CEN >> better. Too bad that we have to deal with three standards. For a >> technician like me this is terrible, too bad it is hard to get to >> different views based on different technical experience. > > > we wish there were not 3 specifications as well. But there are many > reasons why we cannot use the HL7 data types. We are also dedicated to > requirements basis and implementability for openEHR, and the models > you see here I think are by now pretty reasonable attempts on both > counts - they are now implemented in various languages, and the > requirements are (mostly) clearly indicated. A new version of the > openEHR data types specification will be out very soon, fixing some of > the details of the UML and so on. > > - thomas
I had a chat with Gerard Freriks, and he told me that the specs, as described in the CEN-documents are not ready for implementation-purposes. There will be an Implementation Guideline in 2006. Because I am actually the first commercial implementor of the CEN, it is normal I run against al kinds of omissions, unclearities,e tc. Gerard advised me to fill them in myself, and they will be discussed with CEN later. I have of course the risk that interfaces can change, and people using my software have to adopt the changes. The risk will be smaller if I stay as close as possible to the spirit/definitions, now in the standard. This is a great relieve for me. regards Bert Verhees > > - > If you have any questions about using this list, > please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org > > - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
