Andrew Ho wrote:
>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.
>>
>
>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?
>
no (well, yes, that is in fact true, but uninteresting) what I meant was
that different (not completely unrelated of course) structures can both
conform to the same archetype. This is because archetypes are constraint
models, and allow for significant structural variations.
>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?
>
everything currently published is at http://www.openehr.org/doculist.htm
>If you show us some examples of differences in XML schema, I think your
>work would be easier to understand and implement.
>
the XML-schemas will start emerging in the next week or so. We have done
the data types. Still have to do the others.
- thomas beale
