An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101107/5d3a9dc8/attachment.html>
istinfo/openehr-technical
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101107/d45a11b4/attachment.html>
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbe
hi Tom
I'm not going to get into a long debate here about modeling
philosophy. I'll respond with brief points to each of yours, and
then I'll shut up. Other people can take it further if they want.
> they might well be; my original question was: is this the only possible
> reaction (these data ty
___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.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/20101107/ff8325dc/attachment.html>
x
> or not
> useful, it will not be used.
>
> I agree that everyone haveing their own set does not solve the
> problem. If
> any set meets my needs, I don't care what else is in the package.
>
>
> W. Ed Hammond, Ph.D.
> Director, Duke Center for Health Informatics
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.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/20101107/c27437cd/attachment.html>
private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101107/8b454b6e/attachment.html>
ading of most messages.
>
> It (ISO 21090) could have been "more" an OpenEHR standard if OpenEHR
> had more cooperated in this space instead of reinventing again their
> own data types.
>
>
> *
> *
-- next part --
An HTML attachment w
hi Tom
David's points are right on the money. The heart of the matter
is "not invented here". A related issue is the fact that the
ISO 21090 data types are optimised for exchange, not storage
(explicitly a statement in their scope), but the NCI scope includes
storage - which raises hard questions
It is not clear to me that Tom's remarks help either. HL7 had data types
very early. That is not the point. The issue is is there anything in the
future we can agree and work togwether. Unfortunately, I have come to the
conclusion we cannot not, and as a result we shall let the market make
those
ivate/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101107/b377b1df/attachment.html>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101107/49910900/attachment.html>
11 matches
Mail list logo