Gerard,
I don't know that your modelling approach is that far from openEHR - you
are from memory using CLUSTER in a way we are not, but I don't recall
the details. In any case, is there a recent reference page on the web
where a technical summary of your modelling style can be seen?
thanks
- thomas
On 30/03/2018 16:49, GF wrote:
Philippe,
Fist of all: My ideas about modelling and using archetype, etc is not
shared by OpenEhr
I agree that the tree is important.
My tree starts at Composition contaiining one of more Sections, and/or
Entries.
The Entry models a process of one of these: data observation, data
evaluation, data planning, data ordering and data about events/actions.
Each of these models deal with the full epistemology of that topic
using standardised patterns/Clusters/Archetypes
That what is observed is a Cluster archetype that models the datum
plus its context/epistemology.
What is important is the Modelling Style.
In OpenEhr the nodes of the Archetype are changed.
In my style, since I make use of predefined patterns I will not change
the nodes but change the data in the Elements.
In my style of modelling querying the leaves is that what is done. The
unique path defines its meaning.
In my way of modelling the collection of paths is a kind of ontology
for data in healthcare records.
--
Thomas Beale
Principal, Ars Semantica <http://www.arssemantica.com>
Consultant, ABD Team, Intermountain Healthcare
<https://intermountainhealthcare.org/>
Management Board, Specifications Program Lead, openEHR Foundation
<http://www.openehr.org>
Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society
<http://www.bcs.org/category/6044>
Health IT blog <http://wolandscat.net/> | Culture blog
<http://wolandsothercat.net/>
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
