In een bericht met de datum 22-2-2007 11:36:46 West-Europa (standaardtijd), schrijft Thomas.Beale at OceanInformatics.biz:
> Now, since CEN is an archetype-enabled standard, it might make sense to > use data types that are known to work in software and known to work for > archetypes. > > So one question is: what is the intended use of the new ISO date types > (conversion, or to be the 'real thing')? Secondly, how will CEN EN13606 > be validated with a new set of data types? > > - thomas beale Good points / questions, my 2 cents on this: I would like to distinghuis between the few datatypes that are basic and work in software, in archetypes, in HL7 v2 and in HL7 v3, not much but there will be several, and the ones that are technical implementation specific. From clinicians point of view then most day to day data will be represented and they will not have to worry about unimportant technical details (unimportant because smart technicians have found conversion methods to deal with it). imho the ISO standard should define the generic real thing. Integer is real, string is real, OpenEHRstring is one technical artifact derived from real thing to work in some software. Next, it should facilitate in preventing battles to make conversions possible. This can only be solved if we step back from the technical data specification and use the clinical data specification as point of reference, map from there to CEN, Open EHR, ISO, HL7 v2 and v3. It is like the standards, no explosions wanted. Hope this helps, William -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20070225/1316adda/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
