On 08/30/2013 12:26 AM, Thomas Beale wrote: > On 29/08/2013 20:53, Bert Verhees wrote: >> >> >> I think, it has to also some connection with the idea of one world >> wide archetype-repository. But we found out in discussion, this will >> never happen. So now, in the new ADL-standard, 1.5, there will be >> room for namespace. Archetypes will not be centralized maintained, >> but every company will have its own set. > > Companies could make their own set, and sometimes they will make their > own specific archetypes, but in the majority, I think they will re-use > what is already available. Consider: to create from scratch 20 or so > key archetypes (perhaps 400 data points) that has taken 100s of hours > of expert clinician time and quality assurance - very few companies > could attempt that. Also, companies that routinely make products with > archetypes that noone else uses and/or companies that don't share > truly new archetypes.... won't have many interoperability partners.
In the environment I worked last few years, we created maybe 50 archetypes, few more or less. We did not use one of CKM, but a some were inspired by CKM. My experience is that customers, users of our OpenEHR services, wanted their own archetypes. Interoperability was achieved by adopting a message-format which serves the purpose. ---- But I know, this is only my experience in those few projects I worked on. When companies are using the same archetypes, as you indicate, then interoperability over those archetypes is of course no problem at all. And because they know very well the archetypes they send or receive, they will know exactly know what the meaning is of every data-item, and at-codes/archetype-paths are sufficient to identify the data-items. Bert
