Hello
I have been working some time in DCM/archetype metadata. Dublin Core
is suitable for that, however, there is an ISO norm (ISO 15699. Health
informatics. Clinical knowledge resources. Metadata ) which is an
extension of Dublin Core for Health informatics and it's even more
suitable. They have
- thomas beale
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110408/d0679b1a/attachment.html>
> ___
> 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/20110408/59018744/attachment.html>
Hi!
While we are discussing metadata and identifiers... Shouldn't the
metadata/description part of an archetype/template be based on Dublin
Core ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Core ) instead of an
openEHR specific approach? That might make librarians, search engines
and other existing artif
gards,
> > Erik Sundvall
> > erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733
> >
> > ___
> > openEHR-technical mailing list
> > openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> > http://lists.chime.u
er and
requires management, and barely legible once we include the namespace and
additional delimiters.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments
Hi Erik,
I was suggesting that we enforce OIDs, in fact my intent was similar to
yours, to open up the choice of what is used and not enforce the specially
designed ID scheme currently used that requires upgrading to support
namespacing making it have the same issues as the standard UID schemes.
I
set, to allow other implementation profiles for
> other reference models to make their own choices.
>
> Heath
>
*
*
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110408/84948970/attachment.html>
That we are very cautious about reference model version changes
doesn't mean that any other organization does the same.
Look at HL7 v2 & v3 for example ;)
2011/4/8 Thomas Beale :
> On 07/04/2011 12:07, David Moner wrote:
>> Dear Thomas,
>>
>> I agree with your general approach, but you miss two im
9 matches
Mail list logo