On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Thomas Beale wrote:
...
> in this sense, "template" is the usual word, but we consciously avoided
> this because archetypes are constraint models, not just "cookie cutters"
> - that is, two pieces of structured data which look quite different can
> in fact conform to the same archetype.
Hi Thomas,
I think an example would be helpful. In the OIO system, a "completed
form" could be represented as:
<patient_data>
<patient> #contains the form and values used to identify the patient
<data>
<name> #name of form
<creator>
<time>
<last_time>
<last_filler>
<item>
<name>
<value>
</item>
<item>
<name>
<value>
</item>
... more items as appropriate
</data>
</patient_data>
You said "two pieces of structured data that look different can in fact
conform to the same archetype". Do you mean that two different patients
can have different "values" for blood pressure and yet still use the same
archetype (=OIO form) to describe blood pressure?
In OIO, that means the same _form_ is used to describe blood pressure and
the two instances of "completed form" would contain the same form name and
item names - only the values (in the <value> tags) would be different. Is
this also what you mean by having different "structured data"?
...
> right. In my original paper and in some other places I have talked about
> the validator function, which is what the GEHR kernel does. The
> implementation of our new openEHR models will do it in a much improved
> way...
What do you mean by "improved"? Is there information available somewhere
regarding the differences between GEHR and OpenEHR? Would OpenEHR be
backwards compatible with GEHR?
If you show us some examples of differences in XML schema, I think your
work would be easier to understand and implement.
Best regards,
Andrew
---
Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes
www.TxOutcome.Org
