Thomas Beale wrote:
> Now the point of this is not to insist everyone agree with our archetypes.
> Rather we want others to consider the approach (we think there will be broad
> agreement on something like it), and to learn enough about the archetypes to
> understand their power.
I agree. This layer of abstraction should give everyone a focal
point to work toward.
I believe that Alvin is trying VERY hard to find some point where
we can all agree on SOMETHING.
A very noble thing indeed. He did not have the benefit of
attending the AMIA meeting where I suggested that we all at least
make GEHR implementation a goal.
I'm still not certain if the silence I received was meant as;
"Sit down and shut up" or "I agree". <s>
So I took it as the latter.
> (UMLS is a special case of course, being a meta-thesaurus, and it may indeed be
> the case one day that absolutely every term anyone every wants to use will be
> found in it).
True. It will make a good reference. But it is not sufficient to
build a system of inter-communicating applications. The GEHR
'model' can be that base, and still not exclude other models. The
key being the archetype abstraction.
I got the impression that David Forslund felt there was room for
collaboration between GEHR and the CORBAmed COAS ???
Later,
-- Tim Cook, President --
Free Practice Management,Inc. | http://FreePM.com
Office: (901) 884-4126
Censorship: The reaction of the ignorant to freedom.
