On 09/04/2013 22:18, Tim Cook wrote: > There are a large number of misconceptions and incorrect assumptions > in this thread. I don't have time right now to address all of them > but I will later this week. > > Quickly though, there are no "tricks" to what we do in MLHIM. > Everything is 100% W3C standards compliant. > > Exploiting a bug in a tool (like Bert is doing in Xerces) so you can > get what you want, is a "trick". A very poor practice trick at that. > One that is certain to come back to bite you and your customers. > > Tom's definition of Multi-Level Modelling is not different than what > has been on the main page of the MLHIM website ( www.mlhim.org ) for a > long time. I am not sure how anyone can think that I do not > understand the layers and reusability issues at stake.
it's similar, but misses the crucial distinction between archetypes and templates. Without that there is no library of re-usable concepts to use in your data-set definitions. As far as I can tell, this distinction just doesn't exist in MLHIM. So it means that every 'model' has to make up its own definition of standard items like vital signs, lab analytes and so on. > You will notice that we encourage artifact re-use in MLHIM as well. > CCDs, PCTs, XForms and XQueries are all reusable. We just do not > expect that there will ever be global consensus on any one artifact. But you did say that there is no specialisation of models possible. That removes a major mode of re-use. With archetypes, a development project can take 10 archetypes from a national CKM, or openEHR's, and formally specialise them, by adding further restrictions and/or extra data points, as well as translating them, if that's needed. Those specialised archetypes then go into templates they build locally. This system gives fine-grained re-use and re-definition, while guaranteeing that a query for any archetype-defined systolic BP based on a shared archetype, will work, anywhere in the world, regardless of data set, application, clinical context or language. > As far as reading the files. The meta data is standards compliant RDF > in standards compliant Dublin Core, in a standards compliant XML > Schema. What is tricky or difficult about that? > > Yes Bert, most people use tools besides a text editor to do real > development. Maybe only yourself and Richard Stallman use Emacs for > everything? I have sympathies both ways. Example: trying to read RDF in raw form is useless. You can use a tool, but I'd rather have OWL abstract to look at, and that's just text. - thomas
