On 09/09/2011 14:01, Stef Verlinden wrote:
> Great initiative. Let's go for it. Even though I agree with your
> previous remarks that this probably won't provide a long term
> solution, IMHO it's absolutely necessary in order to secure short term
> progress.
>
> Maybe a dumb question, but is there a way we can involve people form
> other standard initiatives (DCM, HL7) in order to speed up
> harmonisation. More specific: is there a mutual interest for all of us
> to invest in this.
My experience is: the instant we 'involve every stakeholder' and set up
some large forum / club / organisation, everything becomes paralysed and
political, and tasks that should take 3 months take 3 years. So we need
to be careful...
Specifically:
* myself and some others on this list are directly involved in an
international DCM effort, led by Dr Stan Huff (Intermountain
Health), and this should yield results before the end of the year
* HL7 - here it depends on what we are talking about:
o HL7v2 messages - there are specific approaches emerging to map
v2 messages to openEHR, and I would see this as a seperate
initiative (although hopefully taking advantage of the same tooling)
o CDAr2 - this has its own UML model (recently) and we may be able
to define some mapping rules / approaches. However, since the
differences with openEHR / 13606 are far greater than between
the latter two, it is a bigger effort
* epSOS - this is a simple CCD that can easily be mapped to
archetypes, and maybe representing it as an RM might be useful.
My feeling is to get the 13606 / openEHR question sorted out first,
because that is by far the easiest. If we stay focussed, unofficial (for
now), and make progress on that then we can tackle bigger beasts...
- thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110909/73da1210/attachment.html>
