EHRcom/openEHR the new exciting paradigm

[Grahame Grieve]

 I call for a time out.

time out is good. I'm about to hit the road for a while

I agree with #1 - #6

 When the world starts to experience the multitude of difficuties with 
 the HL7v3 RIM and message development method what will we do?

keep watching, we will find out next meeting.

Grahame

Antw: Re: EHRcom/openEHR the new exciting paradigm

[Gerard Freriks]

Dear William,

One very  important point I forgot to make:
You wrote: Any discussion in favour of one and against another  
approach is going back to the trenches of WW1 where we would like to  
work towards the future.

What you write is that any discussion pro or contra a point of view  
will lead to a kind of war and prevents good results in the future.
This line of reasoning is strange for a person active in academic  
worlds with a PhD thesis in his CV.
A discourse pro and contra a point of view is the essence of science  
because it leads to better understanding of our complex world.
This line of reasoning of yours makes me feel uneasy because this way  
of argumentation is one seen in religious fanatics that don't want  
any real discussion.

With regards,

Gerard Freriks


--  private --
Gerard Freriks, arts
Huigsloterdijk 378
2158 LR Buitenkaag
The Netherlands

T: +31 252 544896
M: +31 653 108732



On 15-sep-2006, at 19:08, Williamtfgoossen at cs.com wrote:


 Any discussion in favour of one and against another approach is  
 going back to the trenches of WW1 where we would like to work  
 towards the future.

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060916/16b56c63/attachment.html

Antw: Re: EHRcom/openEHR the new exciting paradigm

[William E Hammond]

 13606 and archetype development method what will we do? 

Will we start to patch up something that has intrinsic problems? 

Do you remember the recent discussions on the OpenEHR list. 

My conclusion was that they don't know the definitions of the major 
classes of the RIM and other technicalities. 

Luckily OpenEHR / 13606 is not deployed that widely, so there are not much 
legacy systems to reckon with? 

Or will we start from a more sound starting point. One that is an 
International standard and is on its way to become an ISO standard as 
well? 


Of course this reversion is just to point to the fact that we are 
apparently back in our corners and have this dispute that is nonsence and 
not contributing. 

I am the last to tell that HL7 v3 is perfect, but will be one of the 
firsts to tell it is working. 

I am the last to believe OpenEHR / 13606 is perfect, and wait till I see 
it work in real practice. 


In the meantime, we have harmonized and differences (few) and commonalties 
(biljons) have been determined. 
In the meantime, we will start working with existing tools, set 
requirements and improve the tools. 

I do not care where the tools come from, I care what they can do for the 
very difficult work of entering, storing and exchanging information about 
patients and care in a intelligent, semantic interoperable way. 

I do like HL7 v3 D-MIMs because I see several good working EHR systems 
based on this. To me, beside philosophical problems (fundamental to limits 
in human thinking), and technical approaches, it really does not make a 
difference: make the clinical materials available electronically and make 
clinicians not have to worry about the technology and transformations 
behind. 

Any discussion in favour of one and against another approach is going back 
to the trenches of WW1 where we would like to work towards the future. 

William


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060916/7a67b37d/attachment.html