Re: Socio-technical challenges when the openEHR approach is put to use in Norwegian hospitals

Just a thought on the reading of the article Good article, until I found this sentence: "domain models are now separate from the software (but not the product), and they can be built by non-IT personnel, assuming a tool with a reasonable user interface." Making user-interfaces is a

Re: Archetype relational mapping - a practical openEHR persistence solution

If a database has a field-type XML, then I expect it does something special with that field that justifies the fieldtypename. Especially I expect that from Postgres, because they mostly do good things. Bert On 16-02-16 11:47, Thomas Beale wrote: On 14/02/2016 23:25, Bert Verhees wrote

Re: Archetype relational mapping - a practical openEHR persistence solution

thousand times. I would be really disappointed if they do. Bert Op 14 feb. 2016 17:39 schreef "Karsten Hilbert" <karsten.hilb...@gmx.net>: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:01:55PM +0100, Bert Verhees wrote: > > > I don't believe that XML-databases actually store XML. Oracle, for

Re: Archetype relational mapping - a practical openEHR persistence solution

6:24 schrieb Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl <mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>>: No comments, on the other hand it is Saturday I had left out some necessary technical details. I will possible build it and then have possible the fastest two-level-modeling engine in the world, which

Re: Archetype relational mapping - a practical openEHR persistence solution

) but certainly XML would not be my first choice for the analytics layer. Birger Von meinem iPad gesendet Am 13.02.2016 um 17:56 schrieb Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl <mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>>: Thanks, I always forget it is weekend, as independent developer, there ain't n

Re: Representing microseconds in DateTime

Just for the record, which medical requirement makes measuring micro-seconds necessary? By the way, ISO allows one or more digits to represent a decimal fraction of a second. I don't have the original standard at hand, but Wikipedia says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 There is no

Re: [FORGED] Re: Representing microseconds in DateTime

On 02-02-16 11:07, Koray Atalag wrote: Hi Bert, I was saying ISO8601 do support this – it is openEHR that constrains to milliseconds. You are right, you do say that. I don't know if your code supports this, because the ISO-time-string will be converted to a Time-class and must have the

Re: Archetype relational mapping - a practical openEHR persistence solution

ick. I will now read it more carefully Thank you very much for sharing. Bert Best Regards Xudong 2016-01-26 1:42 GMT+08:00 Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl <mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>>: Another problem is you have to convert your object oriented model (which RM is) to a

Re: Archetype relational mapping - a practical openEHR persistence solution

On 26-01-16 11:25, Jan-Marc Verlinden wrote: Oracle rdbms is indeed ACID. You have to convert the archetype (ADL or XML) to XSD, that will be used to store the XML in a relational DB (for better performance). One small correction, Jan-Marc, this is not possible. Not all constraints possible

Re: Archetype relational mapping - a practical openEHR persistence solution

On 26-01-16 11:35, Thomas Beale wrote: 50,000 such 'paths of interest'. That's a very small number. These paths can be mapped in smart ways to a 64-but number space so that finding out if a specific query term is in some EHR is very quick. When you include a coded list of archetype ids in the

RE: Archetype relational mapping - a practical openEHR persistence solution

Not sure if you ask me Birger, but I will announce the github link here, and will build a working prototype in open source. Maybe parallel I will do something else, I am not sure about that Bert Op 26 jan. 2016 17:26 schreef "Birger Haarbrandt" : > > Thanks! Would be

Re: Archetype relational mapping - a practical openEHR persistence solution

I have some opinions on this My experience years ago was also with an ORM environment, I tried several. but then I looked at the generated queries. This has nothing to do with scalability or good performance. If you want a system with several hundred simultaneous connections working on it,

Re: Archetype relational mapping - a practical openEHR persistence solution

/values in the back of the mind. Both the GUI problem as the query problem can be solved. It should be worth the spent time and the price of the book ;-) best regards and good luck Bert Verhees ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical

Re: Archetype relational mapping - a practical openEHR persistence solution

Another problem is you have to convert your object oriented model (which RM is) to a relational model, which becomes complex in converting templates/aql to SQL. I have been that way. More then five years ago I left it. It is difficult doable, if you want a full featured openehr kernel. I would

Re: New EHRServer v0.5 and roadmap

Very nice, Pablo, an understandable query-builder. Well done. I looked at the code, clean code, worth reading. Good thing about groovy is that it produces clean code, I should train myself more in it. ;-) I take a further look at it next week. Thanks for sharing Best regards Bert On

Re: Trial of openEHR's own 'stackExchange' on the openEHR wiki

On 07-01-16 16:19, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote: I think for this to be useful, the site have to be readable without logging in… That is also true, Google must be able to reach it, and not anyone wants to be known when searching information. ___

Re: Trial of openEHR's own 'stackExchange' on the openEHR wiki

On 07-01-16 19:45, Thomas Beale wrote: do you mean the 'top expert' kind of stuff? It seems pre-computed as far as I can tell. Let's play with it for a few months and see how well it works. We can always try somtehing else later if it doesn't do the job. Yes, I consider it a bit harmful. It

Re: Trial of openEHR's own 'stackExchange' on the openEHR wiki

Looks good, same as stackoverflow, about. good the options to watch and share questions On 07-01-16 19:45, Thomas Beale wrote: On 07/01/2016 17:12, Bert Verhees wrote: On 07-01-16 17:28, Thomas Beale wrote: I changed the wiki so that Questions is now visible read-only to non-logged

Re: Trial of openEHR's own 'stackExchange' on the openEHR wiki

On 06-01-16 09:07, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote: one of the features we don't use on the wiki is 'Questions', which you can see here . There seems to be an authorization-problem, the site says Not Permitted You are not permitted to perform this

Re: Trial of openEHR's own 'stackExchange' on the openEHR wiki

answers which can scare people away from OpenEHR. By the way, hl7 and hl7-fhir have StackOverflow tags. El 6/1/2016 10:34, "Bert Verhees" <bert.verh...@rosa.nl <mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>> escribió: On 06-01-16 09:07, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote: one of the

Re: some differences between specs and implementation

On 25-12-15 14:27, Bert Verhees wrote: Hi Thomas and others, Happy Christmas, of course, but maybe, just like for me, workaholics, taking some time to work a bit in Christmas-day? I am looking at the specs at http://www.openehr.org/releases/AM/latest/docs/AOM2/AOM2.html#_validity_rules

some differences between specs and implementation

Hi Thomas and others, Happy Christmas, of course, but maybe, just like for me, workaholics, taking some time to work a bit in Christmas-day? I am looking at the specs at http://www.openehr.org/releases/AM/latest/docs/AOM2/AOM2.html#_validity_rules And I see the error: *VARID*: archetype

Re: Specialization depth

On 17-12-15 11:09, Thomas Beale wrote: The error messages are actually in ODIN format, which can accommodate EN-US as well as EN, if we really want to bother with that. That is the good thing, you can create error messages in any language, even switch the language if wanted, which fits fine

Re: Specialization depth

On 16-12-15 14:01, Thomas Beale wrote: That is gone in ADL2. in ADL2 you can know the specialisation depth of the archetype by looking at the root node code, e.g. id1 -> depth = 0 id1.1 -> depth = 1 etc I write, as you suggest, from now on the errors/remarks in the PR tracker, I had not

Re: Specialization depth

On 16-12-15 14:05, Thomas Beale wrote: that's why it is gone in ADL2/AOM2. The new ARCHETYPE_HRID class is the one that matters, and it does not know about specialisation depth. Please allow me a question, maybe it is explained somewhere. What is the meaning of the class Archetype_Id in the

Re: Specialization depth

Thanks Thomas for your answers, I will study them tomorrow Best regards Bert On 16-12-15 14:12, Diego Boscá wrote: Must put AOM2 glasses on! 8-) 2015-12-16 14:03 GMT+01:00 Thomas Beale : This is not a specialised identifier, it's just an identifier that has '-'

Re: Specialization depth

t;yamp...@gmail.com>: The concept_id part from the archetype_hrid shows all the parents of a given node (or at least did in 1.4) 2015-12-16 10:42 GMT+01:00 Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl>: On 16-12-15 09:50, Diego Boscá wrote: Parsing current archetype identifiers you can k

Re: Specialization depth

On 16-12-15 11:54, Bert Verhees wrote: I think it is best to wait for an official reaction of the openehr chief architect. No offending intended, just joking ;-) ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http

Re: Specialization depth

the corrections/versions on an archetype. But maybe I misunderstand that concept. Or are you referring to something else? Bert 2015-12-16 9:42 GMT+01:00 Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl>: Hi all, I am looking at this error message from http://www.openehr.org/releases/AM/latest/doc

Specialization depth

Hi all, I am looking at this error message from http://www.openehr.org/releases/AM/latest/docs/AOM2/AOM2.html#_validity_rules * VARCN*: archetype concept validity. The |/node_id/| of the root object of the archetype must be of the form |id1{.1}*|, where the number of |.1| components equals

Re: Specialization depth

GMT+01:00 Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl>: On 16-12-15 09:50, Diego Boscá wrote: Parsing current archetype identifiers you can know the specialization depth and compare it with root node_id. Hi Diego, Thanks for your answer, and I hope you will answer my follow up question I t

Re: Specialization depth

for this. I am now doubting if I should implement that error-detection/message. The issuetracker page seems under construction, so I cannot report it. http://www.openehr.org/programs/software/issuetrackers But I guess people responsible for this have read this. Best regards Bert Verhees

errorhandling in AOM/ADLParser

If you want to use the error-handling only, copy the different code to your project. Of course you are free to use my code, which is quite compact, has a generated AOM, also. I try to keep the AOM-part generated. Best regards Bert Verhees ___ openE

Re: openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 46, Issue 1

that you are responding to my message, because it is a reply to a digest. I hope you are willing to explain what the importance/consequence of your message is for the error messages I am implementing. Best regards Bert Verhees ___ openEHR-technical mailing

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

itical > tooling work was underpinned by solid funding by we simply do not have that > luxury right now. > > Ian > On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 at 21:42, Peter Gummer < > peter.gum...@oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > >> On 27 Nov 2015, at 21:30, Bert Verhees <bert

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 28-11-15 18:29, pazospa...@hotmail.com wrote: Did anyone tried the marand's online editor with the demographic model? Opinions? I would not advise to use an online archetype-editor, if you want your archetypes and templates to be private IP. It is good for students and newcomers who

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 28-11-15 18:29, pazospa...@hotmail.com wrote: Did anyone tried the marand's online editor with the demographic model? Opinions? I believe it does not support demographic archetypes, if this link is the right one http://ehrscape./marand/.si/designer//archetype-editor/.html

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

would not be necessary now, I guess. Thanks for your reply Bert - thomas On 27/11/2015 09:02, Bert Verhees wrote: On 27-11-15 09:56, Dmitry Baranov wrote: I agree that demographic details can be expressed via archetypes. Actors/Participation/Names etc are elaborated well in HL7 CDA spec, by t

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 27-11-15 10:34, Bert Verhees wrote: as ultrastructure. as ultrastructure.??? Must be "information-structure" (sorry) ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listin

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 27-11-15 10:33, Sebastian Garde wrote: …or if it is for an archetype, you can raise a Change Request directly for that archetype on CKM, I just did it, thanks for the tip Bert ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 27-11-15 09:56, Dmitry Baranov wrote: I agree that demographic details can be expressed via archetypes. Actors/Participation/Names etc are elaborated well in HL7 CDA spec, by the way That is a point, why is it not like that in OpenEHR or EN13606?

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

That is something funny, demographics are something which are treated as a stepchild, not only in OpenEHR, .. It is even so that in CKM for long time where no demographics archetypes at all. Until a moment, some years ago, in 2009, Sergio Miranda Freire posted them, a Brazilian version.

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

I think it is very easy to solve. The premise is that several legal entities are sharing patients, and also share an EHR system, and you want to distinguish which treatment is given by which legal institution. It is easy, build your system so, that all compositions are also placed in

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 27-11-15 10:23, Thomas Beale wrote: there is no 'policy' about treating the Demographics specification as 'inferior'. I think I need to explain how and why I thought that. I found the message which caused my recollection that demographic information structures were regarded as inferior

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

My two cents, I believe OpenEHR is patient-centric, and a patient can have treatment in more healthcare-centra. So the patient should be on the root of an EHR, and the healthcare-organisation should somewhere appropriate being linked to a specific treatment/composition, received in that

Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy

On 26-11-15 23:47, Dmitry Baranov wrote: OK Bert, let's say that an EHR system manages a graph of objects and my idea is just a representation of such a graph. PARTY_IDENTIFIED (Patient) - OBJECT_ID (Patient) - COMPOSITION - OBSERVATION - FOLDER - PARTY_IDENTIFIED (Organizaion) If you like

Re: Adverse reaction archetype... just published

Just an idea: I think it is a good idea to do some more effort on marketing. This great archetype, high quality (as far as I can judge ;-) is a very good example to publish outside the OpenEHR-communities. There are many many many who never or only vaguely heard about OpenEHR, and/or don't

Re: Adverse reaction archetype... just published

enehr.org> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On 19 November 2015 at 11:14, Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl <mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>> wrote: Just an idea: I think it is a good idea to do some

Re: Jack Rabbit

tation on the same. Thanks, Subhro. On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl <mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>> wrote: Did anyone ever heard of Jack Rabbit, and how it behaves in OpenEHR context? It seems to have much, an OpenEHR database needs.

Jack Rabbit

to be actively used: Mailinglists: 3 lists and 38,604 messages. First list started in March 2012. There are 3 active lists, recently accumulating 9 messages per day. Best regards Bert Verhees ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical

Re: Jack Rabbit

it more, and that cost much time, and time is the only thing which I do not have enough ;-) Modeshape is part of JBoss, and is advertised to be scalable, fast, and feature-rich. So is Jack-Rabbit Oak. Best regards Bert Verhees On 01-11-15 11:04, Subhrajyoti Moitra wrote: Hello Bert, I

Re: New adl-antlr GitHub project

Good job, I check it later, too busy now. Thanks for sharing Bert On 06-10-15 14:33, Thomas Beale wrote: I have created a new Github project called adl-antlr , to contain a development set of Antlr4 grammars for ODIN and ADL, for use (at least

Re: SNOMED CT constraint syntax - for querying instances or terminology?

I am following this discussion with great interest, just wanted you and Michael to know, just in case you would want to stop it or have it private, which I would regret. Bert On 30-09-15 09:20, Thomas Beale wrote: ok - so the query would be applied to instances in a drug database (each

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 09-09-15 10:24, Thomas Beale wrote: I hope this is clearer. - thomas It sure is. I totally agree. Bert ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 09-09-15 04:20, Thomas Beale wrote: On 08/09/2015 21:55, Erik Sundvall wrote: Hi! ND on the specification documents is not a big or urgent problem if there are Apace 2 licenced computable artifacts like UML-files/descriptions of all classes, ADL/AQL grammars, openEHR term

Re: Advantage of ISO

On Friday, September 04, 2015 18:55:02 Ian McNicoll wrote: > However, your use of 'proprietary' in this context is highly misleading, > particularly as it applies to phrases like 'proprietary standards' or > 'proprietary specifications'. > > I could equally use the phrase 'proprietary

Re: Advantage of ISO

Hi Ian, thanks for your answer. I do not completely agree > My primary concern was to establish that the use of 'proprietary' in the > context of openEHR, particularly in the context of specifications / > archetypes but also in terms of governance, gives the impression (perhaps > unintended),

Re: Advantage of ISO

Hi Ian, thanks for your answer. I do not completely agree > My primary concern was to establish that the use of 'proprietary' in the > context of openEHR, particularly in the context of specifications / > archetypes but also in terms of governance, gives the impression (perhaps > unintended),

Re: Advantage of ISO

Sorry for sending it twice, that was an accident Bert On 08-09-15 16:52, Bert Verhees wrote: Hi Ian, thanks for your answer. I do not completely agree My primary concern was to establish that the use of 'proprietary' in the context of openEHR, particularly in the context of specifications

Re: Advantage of ISO

ations: * requires attribution with all replublishing, sharing * prevents republishing in altered form with same document title, id, and also publisher i.e. 'openEHR' * but allows normal forking into artefacts that are clearly different - thomas On 07/09/2015 06:48, Bert Verhees wrot

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 07-09-15 16:02, Ian McNicoll wrote: Thanks Gerard, That is very positive and helpful. Would you consider adjusting to ‘ openEHR is a not-for-profit company established by UCL’ which I hope captures your reservations about single ownership without giving the impression that this is a

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 07-09-15 16:15, Bert Verhees wrote: does he still think the word "proprietary" is appropriate for the specifications correction, must be: do you still think the word "proprietary" is appropriate for the specifications _

Re: Advantage of ISO

The ND on the specs, there must be a kind of protection. Brand protection could work, but must be registered in all countries of the world. You see the same problem at RFC's, they solved it like this, you cannot change them and publish them under the same name. In the case of RFC a changed

Re: openEHR is open but ISO may offer some other advatages

On 04-09-15 13:31, Gunnar Klein wrote: I mean the submission of certain openEHR specs to ISO can be made with the present formal status of the Foundation being tied to UCL. To further gain acceptance also by governmental bodies around the globe where people may like openEHR but may hesitate to

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 04-09-15 19:55, Ian McNicoll wrote: I am happy to debate the relevant merits of the ISO vs. open-source approaches recognising The one does not exclude the other, I would say. But on second thought, does ISO prohibit giving a free license, or publishing the specs for free? I am not sure

Re: Advantage of ISO

I was very active, 10 years ago, in the anti-software-patent-lobby in Europe. I spent several weeks talking to European members of Parliament. We won.  I made a presentation for Dutch members of the EP. http://www.rosa.nl/software_patenten/ It is in Dutch. I made it quick and dirty in

Re: Advantage of ISO

FUD Fear Uncertainty Doubt This is an old technique for making people afraid. Microsoft was always "fudding" Linux. It is a marketing strategy. Thomas mentioned coaching bureaucrats, making them afraid. It happened before, and it still happens, at least in the Linux world.

Re: openEHR is open but ISO may offer some other advatages

On 04-09-15 09:31, Gunnar Klein wrote: Irrespective of this, I argued a year ago for the foundation to take steps towards becoming a true international non profit foundation breaking its ties witht the UCL as a founder. It is an anomaly in today's world. Gunnar, Can you explain what the

Re: Advantage of ISO

The problem about IP ownership and openEHR is an long standing problem that has not been resolved sufficiently, until now. This is my personal opinion. Why now, if it is a long standing problem, why not five years ago, and why this sudden energy to harm the reputation of OpenEHR? If I

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 04-09-15 08:16, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: It is not a numbers game. Members/users need to own it. CEN, ISO, HL7, SNOMED, WHO, all have members that own the IP. These organizations are real Associations. It is already said, as argument against your position, numbers do not count,

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 04-09-15 08:16, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: It is not a numbers game. Members/users need to own it. CEN, ISO, HL7, SNOMED, WHO, all have members that own the IP. These organizations are real Associations. Which user owns ISO13606? They have to pay to read the standard, and quite much,

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 04-09-15 08:16, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: It is not a numbers game. Members/users need to own it. CEN, ISO, HL7, SNOMED, WHO, all have members that own the IP. These organizations are real Associations. I noticed you only read the first three lines of an message, so I send you short

Re: Advantage of ISO

Gerard, is there a relation between the introduction of AOM2.0, and the coincidence of the renewal process of ISO13606, which has the potential that AOM2.0 will be a part of the renewed ISO13606, and your strong effort to make us aware of your concern about IP risk in using OpenEHR related

Re: Advantage of ISO

So you are saying that you need a license to build an openehr implementation? That is very strange that several parties I know work without license except an open source license, and that for years. How do you explain that? Do you think the "owner" is sleeping? Should code24, marand, Pablo,

Re: Advantage of ISO

Gerard, you write "UCL owns the IP rights and licensing conditions. Members of, participants in, openEHR gremia, do not." Can you explain what you mean, what is the difference in rights between UCL and all those companies which are using it on an open source license? Which right does UCL have,

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 03-09-15 09:10, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: openEHR has one owner. CEN and ISO have members (countries) that are, all together, the owner. This is not true, Gerard, ISO has a statement on its website, that there can be IP which is not known about. So, even an idea in a ISO standard can

Re: Advantage of ISO

lt;mailto:ian.mcnic...@openehr.org> Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On 1 September 2015 at 16:48, Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl <mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>> wrote: On 01-09-15 17:16, B

Re: Advantage of ISO

ore action to fightr these rumors. Best regards Bert Verhees ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

ar case IP is held on specifications archetypes are making use of. It is about ownership of IP of BOTH the Reference Model and the AOM Gerard On Sep 3, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl <mailto:bert.verh...@rosa.nl>> wrote: On 03-09-15 09:07, "Gerard Freri

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 03-09-15 13:02, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: This discussion is about who owns the IP. And then my points about it are not with spoken Which IP do you mean Gerard? The two kinds I know are not "owned" by the OpenEHR foundation. ___

Advantage of ISO

I have written a text (reply to Erik) in Stackoverflow, describing why it will be good for OpenEHR if AOM2.0 will become an ISO-standard in the context of ISO13606 renewal.

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

How many in this community, in the past, were on this mailing-list for their school or university.? For me, I don't care, homework or other work. We are all learning and work in the school of life. See the very interesting discussion he/she initiated.

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

On 28-08-15 07:54, Seref Arikan wrote: Sorry, but I have to ask: are you doing a homework? This sounds like an accusation (the Sorry, I have to ask-part). Then I don't understand the point. How many in this community, in the past, were on this mailing-list for their school or university.?

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

On 27-08-15 19:54, Thomas Beale wrote: I would suggest that CIMI has been simiplified to the point of not being directly usable as an RM by openEHR or 13606 - most of the needed context information is gone in CIMI, and it doesn't distinguish any kind of 'Entry' or clinical statement. Are you

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

: @ianmcnicoll Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org mailto:ian.mcnic...@openehr.org Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On 28 August 2015 at 07:46, Bert Verhees bert.verh...@rosa.nl mailto:bert.verh

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

I agree it is a balancing act in how far the semantics should be in the RM or in the archetypes. Both ways have their pro and contra. Thanks for explaining it Bert On 28-08-15 19:17, Thomas Beale wrote: Hi Bert, On 28/08/2015 16:32, Bert Verhees wrote: On 27-08-15 19:54, Thomas Beale wrote

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

Like the Ocean Archetype editor. It only supports the OpenEhr RM only. That is understandable and no problem. The market will fill in that gap. Op 27 aug. 2015 01:49 schreef Heath Frankel heath.fran...@oceaninformatics.com: Technical, the original grammar for AQL was bound to openEHR RM

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

On 26-08-15 16:33, Kalra, Dipak wrote: The specification of archetypes is very mature, and during the revision we expect to upgrade to the latest AOM (which is 2.0). This part of the standard will also remain focused on a logical representation supporting archetype interchange. Thanks Dipak,

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

On 26-08-15 14:03, Diego Boscá wrote: I agree with most of the points, but I'm curious why you say that 13606 does not support AQL (and in any case wouldn't be AQL does not support 13606?) Yes, that is a good question, I did not know that AQL was considered to be OpenEHR specific. In my opinion

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

On 26-08-15 14:23, Ian McNicoll wrote: but am not aware of any non-openEHR implementations Is there a Xhosa implementation of 13606 or OpenEHR? Does that mean OpenEHR or 13606 are not able to support Xhosa? I would leave it with: AQL is an archetype bound query language, and every system

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

On 26-08-15 14:44, Ian McNicoll wrote: That is fair enough but we were asked to characterise the differences between 13606 and openEHR and I am comfortable that the actual and formal adoption of AQL is one of those differences. If you see it from the formal point of specifications, you are

Re: difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

On 26-08-15 14:57, Sebastian Garde wrote: AQL may not be quite as fundamental as it is to openEHR. How about filtering messages? Messaging is a process, in the cloud it will become very important, it will become more then two system interchanging information. It doesn't matter were your

Re: AQL ANTLR4-grammar

On 25-08-15 04:12, Thomas Beale wrote: Antlr doesn't do anything like full regex. A teacher, years ago, told the classroom, if you try to solve a problem with regex, then you have another problem added. (he was joking, but not entirely) I would like to know an example or description of an

Re: AQL ANTLR4-grammar

On 25-08-15 09:39, Bert Verhees wrote: I would like to know an example or description of an issue in which Antlr4.5 does not work good enough in the OpenEHR context. I think that information can help me and other developers really a lot. I did some shallow research, maybe it can help answering

Re: AQL ANTLR4-grammar

On 25-08-15 04:12, Thomas Beale wrote: actually - these are all output stages, and they are perfectly doable with any yacc/lex compiler serialiser - which is what the ADL workbench is, and what it does. Antlr des make a lot of this easier however. That is interesting, I didn't realize that.

Re: AQL ANTLR4-grammar

On 24-08-15 15:36, Thomas Beale wrote: Antlr4 rule capabilities and particularly pattern matching is weaker than yacc/lex (in some cases quite a lot weaker), Of course, Yacc/lex can only be used to generate C-code. It's functionality in pattern matching is limited to this. To do whatever you

Re: AQL ANTLR4-grammar

On 24-08-15 15:36, Thomas Beale wrote: but it's more concise for the production rules, and as you say, it works for any output side. So that's a big win. Over time, I expect we'll cnvert everything to Antlr4. To say that, have you ever seen code generated by yacc/lex, bison or JJ. It is

Re: AQL ANTLR4-grammar

Over time, I expect we'll cnvert everything to Antlr4. Last remark, I thought there were doubts and delays regarding to converting to antlr4, also because of the expressed doubt about its quality, this message gave me the idea, but as I checked the sources, which I was not aware of, there is

Re: AQL ANTLR4-grammar

I am working with Antlr4, studying it also. It's possibilities are amazing. I think it is the best grammar environment, Terence Parr (rhe designer of it) explains why, and I think he is right. One important reason is that Antlr4 does not need code fragments in its grammar so that he grammar really

Re: AQL ANTLR4-grammar

I wrote this a bit confusing, too late at night and on my mobile (small screen). The idea I wanted to write is that with Antlr4, you can write a grammar, without knowing the purpose of the grammar. If it is used to write a query engine, or if it is used to write a translator from AQL to

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >