I agree with Dr. Ed Hammond. I think that Uhlman point of view, is not totally wrong or right. Yes, as a software architect designing a EHR you know that the concept of separating the framework from data structure, urges a completely different design and OpenEHR abstracted it in a nice way. It can be considered as a best known practice to bridge ontology (or ontology like constructs like SNOMED CT) to real database and application design while it is impacted by RDBMS concepts and can be more enhanced by Object Oriented or Graph Theory thinking. OpenEHR IM is more clear, more coherent and integrated than HL7 RIM, yet it needs redesign for better abstraction and less exceptions. I think that those can not be considered as misstatement, but criticism that may lead us to new enhancements.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Dr Ed Hammond, Ph.D. < william.hammond at duke.edu> wrote: > For the most part, I find that people who write negative remarks most > often know little about the subject. I for one have never viewed openEHR > as controversial. I think openEHR is competitive as is HL7, IHE and most > other organizations. Some of the competition is based on our belief that > we are right; some on protection of our history and proprietary interests. > Actually, much of our life is based on competition, and I don?t think it is > a bad thing. Pot-shots and misstatements like in this book are actually a > sign of success for openEHR. Don?t sweat it.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > W. Ed Hammond > Director, Duke Center for Health Informatics > 2424 Erwin Rd, 12th Floor, Room 12053 > Phone: 919.668.2408 > Fax: 919.668.7868 > Assistant: Naomi Pratt > Email: naomi.pratt at duke.edu > Phone: 919.668.8753**** > > ** ** > > *From:* openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto: > openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Beale > *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:01 AM > > *To:* openehr-technical at openehr.org > *Subject:* Re: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata**** > > ** ** > > > It would be interesting to see what US-based list members think of what > Michael has quoted below. Is openEHR really seen as 'controversial' in the > US? (Controversy can be good - at least it means debate). > > The quote below about David Uhlman being CTO of openEHR in 2001 is > certainly incorrect - I imagine it is supposed to read 'OpenEMR', going by > what I see here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearHealth> in Wikipedia > (in any case, openEHR has never had a 'CTO' position). That's a > surprisingly bad fault in O'Reilly editing; worse, the author page for > David Uhlman <http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/4766> on the O'Reilly > website repeats the same error. This > review<http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920020110.do#PowerReview>on the > same website seems to confirm a complete lack of review or editing > of the original manuscript. O'Reilly obviously is missing basic mechanisms > for quality control. > > But the more interesting question is: are the opinions in this book about > openEHR representative of a US view? > > - thomas > > On 12/02/2012 11:22, Michael Osborne wrote: **** > > I read the recently released O'Reilly book "Meaningful Use and Beyond" on > Safari books today and found the following errors **** > > and some quite blatantly false statements about OpenEHR. ** ** > > ** ** > > Firstly is the claim by one of the authors, David Uhlman, that he was CTO > of openEHR in 2001**** > > - a claim which Thomas Beale denies.**** > > ** ** > > *David Uhlman is CEO of ClearHealth, Inc., which created and supports > ClearHealth,* > > *the first and only open source, meaningful use-certified, comprehensive, > ambulatory* > > *EHR.... David entered health-care in 2001 as CTO for the OpenEHR project. > * > > * One of the first companies to try commercializing open source > healthcare systems* > > *, OpenEHR met face first with the difficult realities of bringing proven > mainstream* > > *technologies into the complicated and some-* > > *times nonsensical world of healthcare.***** > > ** ** > > Secondly, a nonsensical statement about openEHR in the book...**** > > p.161**** > > *OpenGALEN and OpenEHR are both attempts to promote open source ontology > con-***** > > *cepts. Both of the projects have been maturing but some view these as > unnecessary***** > > *additions or alternatives to SNOMED+UMLS. However, they are available > under open***** > > *source licensing terms might make them a better alternative to SNOMED > for certain***** > > *jurisdictions.***** > > ** ** > > And this, p163...**** > > ** ** > > *OpenEHR is a controversial approach to applying knowledge engineering > principles***** > > *to the entire EHR, including things like the user interfaces. You might > think of Open-***** > > *EHR as an ontology for EHR software design. Many health informaticists > disagree on***** > > *the usefulness of OpenEHR. Some believe that HL7 RIM, given its > comprehensive***** > > *nature, is the highest level to which formal clinical knowledge managing > needs to go.***** > > ** ** > > I'm beginning to lose all respect for O'Reilly press. It's been all > downhill since the camel book.**** > > ** ** > > Cheers**** > > Michael Osborne**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > -- > Michael Osborne**** > > > > > **** > > _______________________________________________**** > > openEHR-technical mailing list**** > > openEHR-technical at openehr.org**** > > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > -- Abbas Shojaee, M.D. Medical Informatics Consultant & IT Lead. Dubai Irani Hospital Dubai, UAE Tel: +97143440321 Cell: +989153172172,+971508598876, Fax: +973440321 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120214/2459ff80/attachment.html>
