Tim Cook writes:
> 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.
>
It might be possible to be slightly more abstract than the GEHR model
for inter-communication (a la, CORBA's COAS).
> I got the impression that David Forslund felt there was room for
> collaboration between GEHR and the CORBAmed COAS ???
>
This is definitely true, since the COAS model (being somewhat more
abstract) was intended to be able to include the GEHR model.
Dave
> Later,
> -- Tim Cook, President --
> Free Practice Management,Inc. | http://FreePM.com
> Office: (901) 884-4126
> Censorship: The reaction of the ignorant to freedom.
>
