://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
--
Ocean Informatics *Thomas Beale
Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informatics
http://www.oceaninformatics.com/*
Chair Architectural Review Board, /open/EHR Foundation
http://www.openehr.org/
Honorary Research Fellow, University College London
http
*Thomas Beale
Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informatics
http://www.oceaninformatics.com/*
Chair Architectural Review Board, /open/EHR Foundation
http://www.openehr.org/
Honorary Research Fellow, University College London
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/
Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British
On 24/01/2012 02:53, Shinji KOBAYASHI wrote:
Hi Tom,
What about launchpad? (http://launchpad.net)
I think launchpad has enough features as you mentioned.
Cheers,
Shinji
It may well. I personally don't have experience of using more than a
couple of the available technologies, so we need
On 20/01/2012 11:10, Koray Atalag wrote:
Hi Tom,
I used SourceForge before to host projects (yes that's correct not
just software development but collaborative project sites) in past
which offers for free lists and many more, such as Web pages,
SVN/Mercurial, blog and Wiki and many more.
.
- thomas beale
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120119/c6fefe31/attachment.html
On 19/01/2012 13:43, Athanasios Anastasiou wrote:
Hello Thomas
Wouldn't the openEHR activities qualify for these lists to be hosted
by JISC? (jiscmail.ac.uk)
(If it is alright for academic institutions to host the lists, they
probably can be hosted at jisc as well).
All the best
Seref alerted me to the fact that the grammars used in the current ADL
reference compiler are not that easy to find (actually he said something
else, but I can't print that;-), so I added a small guide
On 18/01/2012 14:46, Linhardt Peter wrote:
Hi Thomas
We have many times discussed, that for physicians and others, whop are not
very experienced in coded transcript
Is the MindMap like visualisation very helpfull to understand and follow
dependencies of Archetypes, and we would
Like to
Hi Nadim,
it is one of the many things I have been struggling to find time to
document and upload. Maybe best to email me personally for the moment.
- thomas
On 17/01/2012 03:00, Nadim Anani wrote:
Dear Thomas,
Are there any documents that one could already look at regarding the
On 16/01/2012 06:12, David Moner wrote:
A possible problem I can envision is that this opens the door to the
creation of invalid archetypes without the possibility of validating
them at design time.
A quick and dirty example just to get the idea. In an archetype, the
HISTORY.origin is
Life would have been much easier if Event recorded 'offset' as a stored
value, and the 'time' was the property being computed. I argued
strenuously for that years ago, precisely to avoid the problem we are
talking about here, but lost the battle ;-)
A nicer approach could be as follows:
* we allow 'computed' attributes in the RM definition used by
archetype tools, which will allow archetypes to be very clear and
nice, e.g. in the case of 'offset'
* in the RM definition, we include a rule that defines the equivalence
of such
On 11/01/2012 02:38, Diego Bosc? wrote:
If you still say that properties can be restricted, then current
stable validated bmm files are incorrect, as they are currently
missing 90% of stored properties (all methods without parameters),
like all the ones in ITEM_TABLE.
We don't include them
On 11/01/2012 11:09, Leonardo Moretti wrote:
Hi all,
maybe this is a silly question, but I didn't find a point in the specs
where this is clearly explained:
The following notation on ADL:
ELEMENT[at0009] occurrences matches {0..1} matches {-- Pattern
value matches {
DV_DURATION matches {
On 15/01/2012 09:08, Diego Bosc? wrote:
Or simply using an assertion on the first place?
there is already an assertion in the RM. Where/how do you want to use it
in an archetype?
- thomas
On 15/01/2012 09:52, Diego Bosc? wrote:
I'm not sure if I have understood your question, but there isn't
already assertion support on the AOM?. just put an assertion of the
restricted and desired condition (in this case something like this:
|event.time - history[at].origin|=P10M)
I don't
I think this could be interesting to consider as well. It is a
requirement for us i think to make this work for 'openEHR', since I
think most people in the community would agree with the need for a face
to face meeting. Having said that, I think we certainly want to have a)
very practical
Hi Diego
On 11/01/2012 03:12, Diego Bosc? wrote:
If it is really needed for the moment for representing templates then
it's OK with me (as long as we agree that this is a temporal thing),
but I still feel that having two separated places to rule UI
generation is a bad idea.
I think that
On 13/01/2012 08:14, Ian McNicoll wrote:
I do like the idea but I would prefer that each conference has its own
very clear identity, albeit that some sessions could be shared, along
with venue etc. A couple of the MIE conferences have operated this way
with local informatics conferences being
On 13/01/2012 08:46, Diego Bosc? wrote:
visible, allowed types, icon...
ok - I understood those were settings relating to the display of that
kind of node within the modelling tool, not of the data in a deployed
system so its about data? What does icon mean then?
- thomas
On 11/01/2012 08:15, Heath Frankel wrote:
Further to my previous email, I believe the original intent of the
name attribute is a form caption of an element value, the approach of
adding a numeric suffix to provide a unique key is contrary to this
original intent.
this is correct. The
defining operational
templates (OPTs).
They are not yet finished or error-free, but I think the explanations
will help a lot more than the previous versions.
Some current conversations still have to be incorporated, of course.
- thomas beale
-- next part
On 10/01/2012 08:40, Diego Bosc? wrote:
Oh, this is the first time I have heard that functions can be
constrained. However, AOM specifications say otherwise:
C_attribute: a node representing a constraint on an attribute
(i.e. UML ?relationship? or
?primitive attribute?) in an
On 10/01/2012 10:05, Leonardo Moretti wrote:
If DV_TEXT doesn't allow to use carriage returns, line feeds, or other
non-printing characters, as stated in
http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/rm/data_types_im.pdf,
pag 29, there is a way to represent short text with minimal
On 10/01/2012 09:52, Sebastian Garde wrote:
Thomas, Rong and I had a similar discussion many moons ago, and in the
end I think we agreed to disagree ;-)
A few other functional properties come to mind such as type in
PARTY_RELATIONSHIP and is_integral in DV_QUANTITY.
These are more or less
On 10/01/2012 14:32, David Moner wrote:
Doesn't this create problems while using archetypes/templates as basis
for the generation of data instances?
I mean, a computed attribute (for example, the EVENT offset) gets its
value from already existing values or attributes of the instance class
On 10/01/2012 22:14, Peter Gummer wrote:
Thomas Beale wrote:
This does not actually solve properly the problem of how CR/LFs are added.
If we assume one DV_PARAGRAPH = 1 CR/LF (as in word processing) then a
report needs to consist of multiple DV_PARAGRAPHs, and we don't currently
have
On 10/01/2012 23:24, Peter Gummer wrote:
Thomas Beale wrote:
You could model multiple paragraphs as a LIST of DV_PARAGRAPH.
but there is no 'LIST' data type to contain the DV_PARAGRAPHs.
Sorry, not a LIST, I meant a multiple-occurrence element like this:
ELEMENT[at0009] occurrences
On 10/01/2012 23:24, Colin Sutton wrote:
Couldn't the text stored in the eHR include HTML paragraph separators,
replacing Windows or Unix specific line separators?
And HTML escape sequences
DV_HTMLTEXT?
Hi Colin,
you can already do that with DV_PARSABLE, which has two fields: the
In ADL/AOM, constraints can be made on computed properties as well as
stored ones. If you look at the spec, EVENT.offset is computed as
time.diff(parent.origin). Making a constraint on EVENT.time, which is
the absolute time (which is what you want in the data) is annoying
because you want to
On 05/01/2012 08:54, Diego Bosc? wrote:
Put a couple of comments on the wiki, but I think it is a thing that
should be discussed on the list.
In ADL 1.5 a flag 'pass_through' was added. Its definition is 'Allows
nodes required for structuring data but otherwise redundant for screen
display
On 04/01/2012 15:37, Seref Arikan wrote:
Greetings,
The AQL grammar from the wiki has direct and indirect left recursion.
Which means without changes in the grammar, LL parser generators (both
JavaCC and Anltr) can't generate parsers for this grammar.
I'm curious if anybody has refactored
On 04/01/2012 15:54, Diego Bosc? wrote:
So has AQL been selected as the official openEHR query language?
not officially. It has been implemented in at least 2 production systems
(it may be 3), so we know it 'works'. But at least from my point of
view, and I am sure the primary developers
On 21/12/2011 08:30, Diego Bosc? wrote:
ok, then the link of the XSD is pointing to an old version (link on
this page
http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/its/XML-schema/index.html).
This is the page that can be reached through the openEHR website menu.
you are right,
On 21/12/2011 13:53, Diego Bosc? wrote:
It is not 'wrong', I'm just saying that following the same syntax for
everything would be better. We had already a discussion about this on
this same list regarding same issues on other schema. I was just
pointing them out in case they need to be
be a significant number of new
visitors to the openEHR wiki not (currently) from the openEHR community,
and this page will act as an entry point for them.
- thomas beale
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private
On 16/12/2011 11:06, Erik Sundvall wrote:
if you want to truly bi-directionally share things ...
the semantics of the end point systems will need to be aligned sooner
or later.
Anyway it wouldn't hurt if a new or refreshed internationally
recognized standard could be used by those vendors
Hi David,
On 16/12/2011 18:48, David Moner wrote:
I suspect this is an intentional difference between current 13606 and
openEHR; to faithfully capture the current (incompatible) situation
versus aiming to change the current situation. Can those different
goals really meet
to ISO for part 2.
It seems to me that it would be useful to have a dedicated place to
discuss this, so I would like to propose a new mailing list,
13606-alignment at openehr.org
Does this seem like a useful idea?
- thomas beale
I have to say, the more I look at YAML, the more I wonder what the
designers were thinking. For example, in this section of the spec,
multi-line quoted strings are only allowed if the 'key' is also quoted
(the strange looking JSON approach); if the key is not quoted (i.e.
'simple') then the
On 15/12/2011 11:31, Thomas Beale wrote:
I have to say, the more I look at YAML, the more I wonder what the
designers were thinking. For example, in this section of the spec,
http://yaml.org/spec/current.html#id2532720
multi-line quoted strings are only allowed if the 'key' is also quoted
On 15/12/2011 12:51, Erik Sundvall wrote:
Hi!
Are you sure that is what it says?
Double quoted scalars are restricted to a single line when contained
inside a simple key.
well I read this to say:
* if you double quote a long String containing line breaks (if you
don't yet get into
I have started a wiki page
http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/openEHR+2.x+RM+proposals+-+lower+information+model
for this 'lower RM' simplification. The top contains the existing
models, feel free to add to the 'problem' list (why are we
simplifying?). If you have a candidate solution
On 08/12/2011 16:56, pablo pazos wrote:
Hi,
I'm working with archetypes that have DV_CODED_TEXT nodes, and those
nodes are always constrained by C_COMPLEX_OBJECT, not by C_CODED_TEXT.
And the internal constraint is C_CODE_PHRASE.
Is there any case that use the C_CODED_TEXT constraint
On 05/12/2011 12:36, Erik Sundvall wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 00:10, Heath Frankel
heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com
mailto:heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com wrote:
I think previously I had indicated I had no problem with the
stringified interval approach in XML,
On 06/12/2011 12:44, Seref Arikan wrote:
A bunch of responses, most of which should actually go to a wiki page
for Bosphorus
I've used binary serialization for AOM because although Eiffel is a
very impressive language, I am not happy about its libraries. Some of
them are mature, but for
On 07/12/2011 11:29, Erik Sundvall wrote:
Good old which ADL? Please go back in the thread and note the
difference between dADL and cADL in the reasoning, dADL is a
reinvention of the wheel (object tree serialization)
Erik,
out of academic interest: was either YAML or JSON around in 2000,
On 05/12/2011 00:23, Sam Heard wrote:
Hi All
I am going to say it once more:
If there is an expression on occurrences of '0..*' anywhere in ADL
then it is an error, for that is not a constraint -- and can only be
wrong (ie the RM may have a narrower constraint). We just need a max
int
purpose for human readability. Is it:
* education e.g. in some kind of class-room / training situation
* debugging
* self-learning
* something else
Just a question
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 13:24, Thomas Beale
thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com
mailto:thomas.beale
On 02/12/2011 01:35, Heath Frankel wrote:
Thanks Erik,
Interesting to see the line up. Can't believe that XML wasn't the
longest file in the list, that kills one of the arguments for JSON vs XML.
For someone that is not aware of YAML, are the white space
significant. If so, this kinds
Not sure if you are saying the ADL Workbench is user friendly or not, but
we are certainly trying to make things better. I have updated the PR
tracker to have beta 4 and beta 5, so issues reported as of the current
beta can record 'ADL workbench beta 5' now. Sorry for the problem there.
' version. Thanks!
On 12/01/2011 12:36 PM, Thomas Beale wrote:
Not sure if you are saying the ADL Workbench is user friendly or not, but
we are certainly trying to make things better. I have updated the PR
tracker to have beta 4 and beta 5, so issues reported as of the current
beta can record 'ADL
On 22/11/2011 11:51, Erik Sundvall wrote:
Hi!
A little suggestion/thought (that might be of value also for
CIMI-folks and others looking at archetyping using ADL and AOM and
wondering if a specific language is needed).
*Limitations:*
For efficient handling of RM (Reference Model)
Hm... some further thoughts on this. I originally chose the {0..1}
curly brackets mini-syntax for ADL because it is the UML 'constraint'
syntax - in UML, all diagram constraints (such as they are) are in
braces (see here
On 15/11/2011 22:19, Erik Sundvall wrote:
Hi!
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:45, Seref Arikan
serefarikan at kurumsalteknoloji.com wrote:
The web service exposes the archetype parser functionality of Thomas Beale's
Eiffel code base with XML and JSON output.
Very nice work! Does this mean that
Hi Rong,
On 15/11/2011 13:44, Rong Chen wrote:
Hi all,
Since we are talking about serialization format of archetypes, I guess
we are not talking about a very large amount of data.
I would prefer to keep the serialization format(s) as close to the
object model as possible in order to
On 15/11/2011 15:19, pablo pazos wrote:
Thank you Seref impressive work!
I'll try the JSON services to do some javascript gui generation.
--
for those interested in JSON, I will have a JSON outputter in the ADL
1.5 workbench in a few days. Although it is not strictly necessary, it
is such
On 13/11/2011 22:43, Heath Frankel wrote:
I too have no problem with this custom serialisation as I have a hand-coded
serializer that does the job (I gave up on the auto-generated ones years
ago).
Heath,
just to be completely clear, since we already had quite a few posts, you
are happy to go
On 14/11/2011 05:23, Heath Frankel wrote:
Hi Thomas,
The answers to the two questions below seem to be counter to each
other. I think if we want to stay true to the RM that we should do
this consistently, otherwise there is no reason why we can't deviate
in other cases such as the first
On 14/11/2011 15:41, Erik Sundvall wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 06:23, Heath Frankel
heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com
mailto:heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com wrote:
However, others may not be so keen on this as those starting out
with openEHR like to use the
On 12/11/2011 19:48, Erik Sundvall wrote:
Hi!
I just want to check if I understand the ISM intentions correctly...
In FIGURE 24 openEHR standard Instruction State Machine in
http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/architecture/rm/ehr_im.pdf there
is no path from SCHEDULED to EXPIRED.
Of
On 11/11/2011 16:21, pablo pazos wrote:
Hi, I was thinking of this a lot: using a schema-less formats to
represent archetypes and RM instances.
I think if we agree on a common language/standard/definition, we don't
need to define the types of any node on a JSON/YAML structure, because
On 11/11/2011 08:15, Shinji KOBAYASHI wrote:
Hi Thomas and colleagues,
I would like to discuss about the other serialization form of archetype, too.
I thought YAML could be an alternative of them.
I had forgotten about YAML I have to admit. It would be interesting to
support that in the ADL
On 11/11/2011 07:34, Diego Bosc? wrote:
Although this would work, I think that it would make ADL far less
readable and would oblige people to know always the reference model
to be clear, I am not proposing to make any change at all to ADL. ADL is
meant as a proper readable, mathematical formal
On 11/11/2011 08:19, Erik Sundvall wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:34, Diego Bosc?yampeku at gmail.com wrote:
Although this would work, I think that it would make ADL far less
readable
Some readability thoughts...
When a value (e.g. upper bound) may be either a number or a symbol (*
The statistics view finally looks as follows. This will be released in
the next few days.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111028/df2208aa/attachment.html
This file should help writing a new schema, plus the existing schemas:
http://www.openehr.org/svn/knowledge2/BRANCHES/P_schema/rm_schemas/EXAMPLE.bmm.txt
(these files will all move into the TRUNK in a day or so)
- thomas
I have refined the generated statistics in AWB, and the result is shown
below for CKM archetypes (snapshot June 2011). Notes:
* the stats are over the 197 archetypes validated by the ADL 1.5
compiler (note that this is more strict than any of the ADL 1.4
tools). Another 80 archetypes
On 24/10/2011 16:20, Rong Chen wrote:
Thanks, Thomas!
This is definitely the feature I have been waiting for. Dose RM
class/attribute statistics also work for customised RM, i.e.
non-standard openEHR RM?
Cheers,
Rong
they certainly do. The adltest repository is a non-standard test RM
a statistics page to the Archetype tool, currently
with an output like the following:
I am currently adding the aggregation functionality to roll these counts
up over an entire repository of archetypes.
Any comments or feedback on statistics you would like to see are welcome.
- thomas beale
- thomas beale
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20111007/dae30285/attachment.html
On 19/09/2011 09:55, David Moner wrote:
It sound as a very interesting proposal.
As you say, profiling ISO 21090 data types leads to several problems
of inconsistency and non-interoperability. And in terms of efficiency,
our tests using the new data types in LinkEHR are not satisfactory at
is a necessary future step for both
openEHR and 13606.
If HL7 goes this way, some real convergence finally looks possible, and
people working on openEHR and 13606 need to think about how to go about it.
- thomas beale
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed
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
--
Ocean Informatics *Thomas Beale
Chief
On 16/09/2011 15:27, pablo pazos wrote:
I agree with you both: we need to get things done and find reliable
tools up to the task.
Many opensource projects use cloud based services, and don't need/try
to make everything open source at the infrastructure level.
Jira is great for issue
The 40kb limit was one of the sysadmin rules at UCL, and I happen to
agree with it (obviously, it could have been 50 or 100 or whatever, but
they use 40). I know it is sometimes annoying but it does prevent
massive attachments. Some years ago I was on probably 6 HL7 lists (they
have about 40)
On 12/09/2011 08:51, Diego Bosc? wrote:
':' are not valid as names in most operating systems, so it would be a
problem even for adl file names. That's why I don't think it is wise
to allow this one in particular.
I don't remember anywhere in ADL/AOM where filenames are specified, and
':',
the intended proposal. I think wider understanding and more
informed debate of the proposal will now be possible.
- thomas beale
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments
David,
no offence was intended (at all). I was trying to point out (badly) in
the context of the current discussions on licensing and openEHR that, if
CC-BY had been in place in the past, then:
* the CEN 13606-2 standard, being a copy of work done by openEHR (with
adaptations done to
On 09/09/2011 17:53, Sam Heard wrote:
Hi Ian
My interest is the pain we get as the tools get developed and tweaked as does
ADL and multiple versions.
well, changes to formalisms are different from changes to tools. All
these things are already or can be version managed, so this is just a
On 10/09/2011 12:59, Diego Bosc? wrote:
This kind of problems has given us a lot of problems when using ADL to
work with other models like HL7 CDA or CDISC ODM, where there isn't
any kind of rule (for example, in ADL CLASSES must be upercase and the
attributes lowercase, and in CDA this is
-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
--
Ocean Informatics *Thomas Beale
Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informatics
http://www.oceaninformatics.com/*
Chair Architectural Review Board, /open/EHR Foundation
On 10/09/2011 14:22, Diego Bosc? wrote:
ADL parser.
and I am not saying it should be allowed, just that this kind of
things happen :)
Diego,
I am still not clear on the actual problem - if it is the ADL workbench
parser, would you mind reporting it here
it is doable.
At this point, I would like to see what interest there is in an
initiative like the above. If there is interest, we could create a
dedicated mailing list and project workspace for it, and start to do
some work on it.
So - what are people's thoughts on this?
- thomas beale
On 09/09/2011 10:39, Seref Arikan wrote:
Hi Peter,
We may be able to replace Eiffel Vision with something else, but that
is the next step of experiments, and will take a long discussion
before we get started with it. Thanks for the explanation!
we can certainly do that - EiffelVision is only
On 09/09/2011 14:01, Stef Verlinden wrote:
Great initiative. Let's go for it. Even though I agree with your
previous remarks that this probably won't provide a long term
solution, IMHO it's absolutely necessary in order to secure short term
progress.
Maybe a dumb question, but is there a
There is this wiki page
http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+Transition+Feedback+Pagefor
feedback that some of you have already used. Please feel free to add to
it, including subpages, for larger content.
I re-organised the parent page
Diego,
Are the archetypes online anywhere?
As an aside, it is an interesting document - 45 pages about archetypes,
including a lot of directly copied openEHR material, and no attribution
at all to openEHR! Lucky it is not an academic paper
- thomas
On 09/09/2011 15:28, Diego Bosc? wrote:
On 09/09/2011 19:04, David Moner wrote:
Thomas,
Could you please clarify this sentence?
I'm the main author of that document. As you said, it is a 45 pages
document of which only two and a half are a summary description of ADL
to understand the proposed archetypes. And only there we can
David, Diego,
I just tried to compile the archetype
CEN-DEMOGRAPHIC-IDENTIFIED_HEALTHCARE_PROFESSIONAL.HCP_Dispenser.v1 in
the ADL Workbench... I had to make a few changes:
* IDENTIFIED_HEALTHCARE_PROFESSIONAL has an attribute
'scopingOrganisation' in the standard, but the archetype had
://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
--
Ocean Informatics *Thomas Beale
Chief Technology Officer, Ocean
On 07/09/2011 21:46, Sam Heard wrote:
Thanks Stef
The previous Board did not want to make an error and use too loose a
licence given that there is no going back.
Our concern is that someone could specialize an archetype and claim
copyright, or create a template and do the same. It is our
On 28/08/2011 23:47, Abbas Shojaee wrote:
Dear Thomas
Thank you for your reply. This is exactly my concern, taking some
concepts (e.g. version, demographic etc.) outside of Archetype
perspective, opens room for exceptions to appear, which gradually
makes the design incoherent and
On 02/08/2011 13:13, Sebastian Garde wrote:
Hi Seref,
interesting, I think Thomas changed this rule for ADL 1.5 to:
VACMC - cardinality/occurrences validity: where occurrences and
cardinality are stated, the interval represented by: (sum of all
occurrences minimum values) .. (sum of
this is represented in the raw form, use the 4th or 5th views
(ADL or XML).
- thomas beale
On 02/08/2011 18:29, Blaya, Joaquin Andres wrote:
Hi,
Apologies in advance if this is the incorrect email list for this
topic, but I thought it was the most relevant.
I'm a member of OpenMRS
Diego,
if you mean the ADL 1.5 format, see the specs at the bottom of
http://www.openehr.org/svn/specification/TRUNK/publishing/roadmap.html
- thomas
On 21/06/2011 09:57, Diego Bosc? wrote:
Hello everyone,
I have been trying to found information about ADLs, but there is no
information on
) would only be
useful amongst two or more models.
All the best
Athanasios Anastasiou
**: But a very good indication of the patterns that are actually used
out there...maybe Google is already doing it.
On 05/05/2011 17:20, Thomas Beale wrote:
this is an often debated question
For the tool, see
http://www.openehr.org/svn/ref_impl_eiffel/TRUNK/apps/adl_workbench/doc/web/index.html
For the wiki page see here
http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/openEHR+Templates+and+Specialised+Archetypes
- you can see a lot of examples here.
otherwise see the links on the page
On 21/06/2011 13:09, Athanasios Anastasiou wrote:
Hello Thomas
Thank you very much for your response.
One of the motives for what i am outlining in my last message has been
the recurring discussions in the list about the suitability of this or
that model (or approach) in e-health. So, an
erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 13:41, Thomas Beale
thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote:
On 28/04/2011 02:07, Heather Leslie wrote:
Hi everyone,
I think you are missing some of the further complexity here
801 - 900 of 1686 matches
Mail list logo
