-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-
bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale
Sent: Monday, 10 December 2007 7:34 AM
To: adam.flinton at nhs.net; For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: Re: Suggestion wrt XML Archetypes Templates
Adam Flinton wrote:
I reserve my
at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Heath Frankel
Sent: 10 December 2007 11:17
To: 'For openEHR technical discussions'; adam.flinton at nhs.net
Subject: RE: Suggestion wrt XML Archetypes Templates
No XML Schema changes required, in fact the schema already indicates that
the string data should have space
Adam Flinton wrote:
I reserve my views wrt attributes vs text() however that would do on the
proviso of a bit of testing with many tools as it used to be patchily
supported by different tools.
I accept that was a few years back things may well have improved.
So then next question then
Lisa Thurston wrote:
Hi Adam and all
I think there might have been some misunderstanding regarding the
problem you raised. Yes Oxygen and XmlSpy will add unpredictable
whitespace characters into an element when pretty printed and resaved.
The problem is that the XML tools don't know they
Chunlan Ma wrote:
Dear Adam,
I totally understand the XML issues that you described in your previous
email. However, this problem doesn't exist if you use oXygen xml
editor. I
just downloaded Altova XMLSpy 2008. I opened an archetype XML file using
XMLSpy 2008 and did pretty-print and then
Gerard Freriks wrote:
My question:
- What is your justification for your statement?
a) Safety
b) Efficiency
c) Best practice
/| Microsoft uses a lot of XML documents in its products and many of
them use/
/elements to contain values. In fact if you go to W3Cschools you
will see
/
Gerard Freriks wrote:
Thanks.
But I'm curious in:
Why?
Why is you solution more safe?
A) You are definitively bookending the string.
This is exactly the same as you do within the ADL e.g.
[at0002] =
description = *
text = Procedure
Ian McNicoll wrote:
Just for info, I have the latest version of XMLSpy 2008 and cannot
reproduce the problem with Pretty-printing adding whitespace to
element values. Although XMLspy rather nicely word breaks long text
lines and indents appropriately, none of this whitesapce appears to be
Thomas Beale wrote:
Adam Flinton wrote:
To quote from the oxygen xml page above:
Although writing documents with no indentation is a perfectly
acceptable practice, it makes editing difficult and is error prone. It
also makes the identification of exact error positions difficult.
Note that that means that you would almost certainly have to specify
collapse that no values could ever start or end with a space or
contain more than one contiguous space.
This is what is specified in the openehr schema for most of the elements
you are talking about.
For instance, all types
as:
archetype_idvalueopenEHR-EHR-ACTION.procedure.v1draft/value/archetype_id
So are templates wrong archetypes right or vice versa?
The included and unbounded attributes exist for both lower and upper with
default values of false. Due to the openEHR assertions, you will never need
more than 1 attribute on each
archetypes
templates which is that the values are contained as a text() child of an
element sometimes as the text() child of a value child of the element.
This is dangerous (IMHO) wrong.
The reasons being that :
A) a single value of that sort should be contained in an attribute.
B) It leads
gomez adrian.gomez at hospitalitaliano.org.ar wrote:
Where is the best information site o documentation to understand the
archetypes technology.
thanks
Adrian Gomez
Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires
ARGENTINA
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
The Resources section is the place to start and the openEHR Primer and
the openEHR Health Computing Platform are the first key documents to
read. Then it depends on what you want to do; build archetypes, develop
an application ...
http://www.openehr.org/shared-resources/getting_started.html
An authors' link to this paper is at:
http://healthinformatics.cqu.edu.au/downloads/Garde_BDSArchetypes_2007.pdf
- thomas beale
Thomas Beale wrote:
The following paper on archetypes and clinical data sets was recently
published.
* /*Expressing Clinical Data Sets with /open/EHR
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20071114/15a1c295/attachment.html
(wonderfully) in a previous thread about archetypes and templates, one
can simply come to a conclusion that (almost) universal and non-volatile
domain knowledge go into former while local/volatile knowledge go into
latter. In any concept such constraints are an integral part of that
domain
.
For instance the NHS templates refer to an the ID but how do I know
where to go to get that?
You could simulate it quite easily for the archetypes:
Base URL (e.g.
http://svn.openehr.org/knowledge/archetypes/dev/adl/openehr/ehr/)
+ a folder as per the various Archetype classes (e.g. section/ or
entry
What is the unique identifier for each archetype?
I assume it is the id
e.g. openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.blood_pressure.v1
but is there no URI that I could always resolve to get the definition.
For instance the NHS templates refer to an the ID but how do I know
where to go to get that?
The
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20071022/fb05b0eb/attachment.html
I haven't followed this whole thread, in particular I haven't seen Rong's
emails about templates and aggregation archetypes but I thought I would
provide a little input about the future of the template specifications.
If you have a look at the Template Object Model as published as a draft
Thanks all for the excellent explanations on the differences between
archetypes and templates both from functional and technical point of view. I
agree with Sebastian, these rather educational comments should be included
in our FAQ page.
On the technical side, I will be glad to review the early
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20071021/680fc2cd/attachment.html
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20071019/86ceb3ed/attachment.html
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OceanC_small.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4972 bytes
.
At the simplest and most obvious level, an archetype is a data specification
for a single clinical concept. A specialisation is a type of archetype. A
template is an aggregation of archetypes, some of which may be specialised,
that are combined to carry out a particular clinical purpose eg a discharge
summary
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20071019/5ef1c143/attachment.html
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OceanC_small.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4972 bytes
I should note that in the next generation of archetypes and tooling,
archetype 'source' files for specialised archetypes will be
'differential' in nature - i.e. valid ADL, but containing only added and
changed items from the parent, just as for subclasses in an
object-oriented programming
archetypes, one designed for NHS by Ocean which
is already a specialization of general histology archetype and the other
archetype
I am currently modeling, Bethesda System 2001. I have not experimented yet if
my archetype can be redesigned as a specialization of NHS archetype (PAP
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20071018/3535f029/attachment.html
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OceanC_small.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4972 bytes
Hi,
I also think we should avoid multiple inheritance - it is complex enough
the way it is - from a tooling as well as from an archetype design point
of view. We don't need to make it complicated in addition to complex.
Like Erik, I don't know the details of these two archetypes, but I think
Koray Atalag wrote:
In my former message, with the question of writing down B and A for
spelicalization section of C, I was proposing to write down the names of all
archetypes till the top level in specialization archetype- like an absolute
specialization path. This I think is not true
Erik Sundvall wrote:
Hi!
Can one share important sub-parts without sharing view on process and
structure. If so, will the information entered using the two different
archetypes be computable in a similar way for e.g. decision support
systems.
this is why we have Cluster Structure
: Thursday, 18 October 2007 8:46 AM
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: RE: Multiple parents and max number of nested specialized
archetypes?
Hi,
I also think we should avoid multiple inheritance - it is complex enough
the way it is - from a tooling as well as from an archetype design point
ah - 'data quality' in other words - i.e. markers / meta-data relating
to the data capture from the source, not the integrity of the data as
represented on the openEHR system?
I would like to expand that to data quality assurance. How can one
objectively and according to locally accepted
to constrain it
for specific purpose.
Clusters are in use all through the NHS archetypes/templates. I have found
them especially useful in examination-related archetypes for very simple and
universal concepts eg dimension, inspection, etc. These clusters will pop
up amongst a large range
be to
aim for a maximal Pap report archetype and use the template to
constrain it
for specific purpose.
I agree.
Clusters are in use all through the NHS archetypes/templates. I
have found
them especially useful in examination-related archetypes for very
simple and
universal
Dear Graham,
Is multiple inheritance in the use case you presented, the only
solution?
I expect it is not.
So why use it.
When 'data integrity' is a recurring issue in several archetypes, re-
use by inclusion of a 'data integrity' archetype in an other
archetypes is a better other solution
Grahame Grieve wrote:
At the moment we have not seen any need for multiple inheritance in
archetypes.
I see this as very similar to multiple inheritance in objects.
There is no *need*, but there is useful things that can be done.
The question is whether the price is justified
complex and time-consuming, reconciling back
up to the parent once the lowest level of child requirements has been
captured - I have experimented initially with mindmapping for these
problems. To date they have been mainly related to principles of inspection
and palpation in cluster archetypes
Andrew Patterson wrote:
I should note that in the next generation of archetypes and tooling,
archetype 'source' files for specialised archetypes will be
'differential' in nature - i.e. valid ADL, but containing only added and
changed items from the parent, just as for subclasses in an
object
Hi Koray,
At the moment we have not seen any need for multiple inheritance in
archetypes. Do you have a particular use case? Note that C specialising
B means that C conforms to B and to A. Nothing special needed to do that.
- thomas beale
Koray Atalag wrote:
Hi,
I have a question about
Hi,
I have a question about the referencing of archetypes in specialization. And
also want to know if there is a limit on the number of specializations of
archetypes.
For example:
A is top level archetype
B is specialization of A
C has to further specialize B
and there is possibility that D
'
Subject: RE: [archetypes.com.au] Functionality to compare two archetypes
Hi Sam,
Of course it improves the risk for the user to unconsciously hide the changes
the user is looking for, but in general I believe that it is a good thing to
implement useful functionality even if it improves
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20070913/b263a212/attachment.html
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OceanC_small.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4972 bytes
in the archetype. Otherwise it can be
quite annoying to compare archetypes which contain many languages.
Greetings,
Mikael
_
From: openehr-technical-boun...@openehr.org
[mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Garde
Sent: den 10 september
Of Sam Heard
Sent: den 12 september 2007 22:05
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: Re: [archetypes.com.au] Functionality to compare two archetypes
Hi everyone
We need to be careful here as this will show the changes and if there have
(inadvertently) been changes in other languages then we
Hi Sebastian!
It is a very nice piece of work you and Stefan have done! I fully
agree that we need to make archetypes compatibility checking explicit
and this is a very good start.
It will be useful to publish the algorithm that you used for
comparison so others could comment. And the same
Rong Chen wrote:
Hi Sebastian!
It is a very nice piece of work you and Stefan have done! I fully
agree that we need to make archetypes compatibility checking explicit
and this is a very good start.
It will be useful to publish the algorithm that you used for
comparison so others could
Dear all,
There is a new version of the Archetypefinder available at
http://www.archetypes.com.au where you can easily find the latest openEHR
archetypes.
Most noticable changes:
* we have included a browsable mindmap for each of the archetypes now
(see e.g.
http
Subject: [Archetypefinder] Archetypes as mindmaps, German archetypes
Dear all,
There is a new version of the Archetypefinder available at
http://www.archetypes.com.au ( http://www.archetypes.com.au/ ) where you can
easily find the latest openEHR archetypes.
Most noticable changes:
we have
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: Language tags within archetypes
Ocean has been recently doing some work in translating archetypes into
Chilean Spanish which is proceeding well. We have come across a minor issue
with standards for language tags and wanted to get the groups opinion
to an activity (since there are no
state-related fields in the class named ACTIVITY except a pattern
pointing out allowed action archetypes)? Maybe I am misunderstanding
something here.
Remember, many actions will be entered without an instruction - so no
activity id is required
Since the allowed
Hi!
Do I understand correctly that (at least) the following two archetypes
refer to specific parts (selected by paths) of other archetypes, and
that these references will be created/selected by clinicians at
runtime?
http://svn.openehr.org/knowledge/archetypes/dev/html/en/openEHR-EHR
:
- Are there any examples of instruction archetypes with more than one
activity anywhere?
- If different activities (of the same instruction) point to different
action archetypes how should then the resulting usage of the ISM be
interpreted? Can they be considered part of the same process with some
Greetings All,
Thank you for all the interesting replies on the request on ECG-archetypes.
To clarify what our efforts in making an ECG-archetype are;
We have, as part of our thesis, examined the standards; SCP-ECG, aECG (FDA-XML)
and DICOM for storing and exchanging raw ECG and metadata
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20070311/a0adcd71/attachment.html
-- next part --
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
Of Sam Heard
Sent: Sunday, 11 March 2007 7:49 PM
To: dclunie at dclunie.com; For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: Re: ECG archetypes
Hi David
Absolutely not - what we need are readers that can make sense of data as a
blob and get these specified as suitable for use in an EHR. Do you
of the clinical implications - differential diagnosis
etc
and will include more archetypes than the straight physiology and decision
support data.
Cheers, Sam
Gerard Freriks wrote:
Yes.
Have a look at what is available at the machine interface and decide wether
you really want this, need
Engineering and Informatics. In this semester ?
our
finale, we are working with complex data interoperability to an
Electronic
Health Record (EHR). We are following the openEHR?s EHR
architecture standard,
and therefore also working with archetypes.
We have a few questions we would like you
Freriks [mailto:gf...@luna.nl]
Sent: 09 March 2007 09:24
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
Cc: Melvin I Reynolds; 06gr956d at miba.auc.dk; For openEHR technical
discussions
Subject: Re: ECG archetypes
Dear Colleague,
-1- I assume that you want to store all ECG measurements and not only
it as a blob and
handing it out to the original application on demand.
Now, of course, *any* data can be made sense of given
appropriate specs. Also, that's the whole purpose of
archetypes - to make data self-descriptive and
self-consistent. And in an ideal world one would want to map
the original
Yes.
Have a look at what is available at the machine interface and decide
wether you really want this, need this in the EHR.
Or only a limited subset.
Gerard
-- private --
Gerard Freriks, MD
Huigsloterdijk 378
2158 LR Buitenkaag
The Netherlands
T: +31 252544896
M: +31 620347088
E:
architecture standard,
and therefore also working with archetypes.
We have a few questions we would like you to help us deal with.
- What we are trying to investigate is how to represent a recorded ECG-signal
in an archetype, and therefore we are wondering what the status is on dealing
with ECG
It's not a nasty word. But the revolution is over. Now it's implementation time.
This is a typical case of an innovation that is mature enough to be implemented
by many not only by the original inventors.
Venture capitalists don't like revolutionary, it's true.
O. Pishev
Quoting Gerard Freriks
Okay Ognian.
Let us settle for your point of view and agree.
In the mean time you all know that it is, has to be true.
The railway and locomotive,
the steam engine in ships,
the telephone,
the fax,
the PC,
Internet,
the printed book or newspaper,
and many more things were paradigm shifts,
were
Quoting Gerard Freriks gfrer at luna.nl:
Okay Ognian.
Let us settle for your point of view and agree.
In the mean time you all know that it is, has to be true.
The railway and locomotive,
the steam engine in ships,
the telephone,
the fax,
the PC,
Internet,
the printed book or
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:43:51AM +0100, Gerard Freriks wrote:
...
... revolutions, that changed society ...
Past Tense
...
And EN13606 and openEHR will be the same.
Future Tense
Revolutionary can only be applied after the fact.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167
.
And is exactly what healthcare of the future needs
In the attachment a draft presentation with more information about
the CEN standards.
March 29 and 30 a tutorial about the new revolutionary European EHR
standard and Archetypes will be held in Leiden.
More information can be found at:
http
Anything dubbed revolutionary raises cautionary red flags.
As Adrian Midgley once aptly put it:
Ars longa, IT brevis.
Karsten
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:10:09PM +0100, Gerard Freriks wrote:
Subject: CEN published En13606-1 EHRcom. Tutorial about Archetypes
X-Mailer: Apple Mail
Dear Karsten,
For several reasons I was using that special nasty word
revolutionary.
-1-
To be able to get 'plug-and-play' interoperability as opposed to the
very big problem of implementing many messages across vendors in a
uniform way, is REVOLUTIONARY.
-2-
To have a standard with
Dear Sam,
Excludes and Includes, open/closed might serve most requirements. We do
need certain rules as well, e.g. can we set a slot which excludes all.
Like Gerard and Koray had mentioned, I agree to have a way to categorise
the archetypes. That would make the includes and excludes lots
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20070221/3ad85e5e/attachment.html
-- next part --
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
Sam,
About restricting slots.
It must not be an on/off type of restriction.
Is it possible to have 'types of archetypes'?
And then.
What 'types' are needed?
Isn't there a need for an 'Archetype ontology' that helps provide
'types of archetypes'?
Gerard
-- private --
Gerard Freriks, MD
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20070109/087aad98/attachment.html
-- next part --
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20070108/b36218e3/attachment.html
-- next part --
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
2007/1/8, Koray Atalag atalagk at yahoo.com:
Currently both the Editor and the
Workbench allow these type of errors.
Hi Koray,
The latest code of the Java Archetype Editor now validates cardinalities. It
also has support for all but the demographics archetypes now. Lots of new
improvements
Sam Heard wrote:
Thanks Koray
Your expression of cardinality and occurrences is exactly correct -
there are clearly some errors in the archetypes.
The only reason to limit cardinality in the archetype is to force a
choice when there are more than one child e.g.
container x
of archetype
design - ones that most probably will never encounter while designing
their archetypes.
Best regards and Bedankt!
-koray
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr
.
* another one would be to make a number of ITEM_TREE or ITEM_LIST
archetype of the relevant piece of content as separate archetypes, and
use slots to include particular subsets.
* a third possibility is to use invariants to prevent certain paths from
existing that would otherwise be allowed
of reference, you create a
CLUSTER node, and then individually reference the subset of paths of
items from the target CLUSTER that you want, but not others.
* another one would be to make a number of ITEM_TREE or ITEM_LIST
archetype of the relevant piece of content as separate archetypes, and
use
.
* another one would be to make a number of ITEM_TREE or ITEM_LIST
archetype of the relevant piece of content as separate archetypes,
and
use slots to include particular subsets.
* a third possibility is to use invariants to prevent certain
paths from
existing
want, but not others.
* another one would be to make a number of ITEM_TREE or ITEM_LIST
archetype of the relevant piece of content as separate archetypes, and
use slots to include particular subsets.
* a third possibility is to use invariants to prevent certain paths from
existing
Hi to all,
While revising my MST archetypes, I came across some confusion on the
use of cardinality and occurences. And when I reread ADL 1.4 and ADL2,
inspected the sample archetypes and then created new ones with Archetype
Editor and also tested with the Workbench my confusion got even more
Hi,
I am doing some experiments on a XML serializer for the Java archetype
editor. I wonder if there are any example XML archetypes that I can look at
to verify that I follow the XML-schema documentation correctly?
Regards,
Mattias
-- next part --
An HTML attachment
Subject
Antw: Re: Antw: Re: AW: HL7
16/10/06 21:19templates/archetypes
Williamtfgoossen at cs.com schreef:
Good Point Ed,
Until now the list of actual OpenEHR implementation I have actually
seen working is 0
William,
I told before on this list, English is not even my second language, but
I do what I can to be understandable.
---
Now to your Good Point, Ed
to the dinosaur systems for GPs, stemming from the 80 ies, I
agree, these have difficulties with HL7 v3, and they would have similar
troubles
with OpenEHR archetypes.
My point is that you need to change to new desigs to make it work.
Thanks for the feedback
-- next part
: Re: Antw: Re: AW: HL7 templates/archetypes
Yes Bert,
I agree with many of the problems.
My point was: today I cannot go to a live implementation of a OpenEHR
system. You support this.
Today I can point you at least to 3 working systems that have HL7 v3
Care Provision as the founding
William E Hammond wrote:
You assume the worst of me. It seems that looking at actual
implementations of both 13606 and V3 will provide excellent experience data
for both groups. I know V3 implementations, and did not know many 13606
implementations, altho I do know one system that has
Williamtfgoossen at cs.com wrote:
Yes Bert,
I agree with many of the problems.
My point was: today I cannot go to a live implementation of a OpenEHR
system. You support this.
actually, you can. We'll give you the URL of the webservice interface
whenever you want it;-)
- thomas beale
.
For instance the HL7v3 Mood attribute in the HL7v3 RIM will map onto
a specific type of Archetype.
Types of Archetypes are based on a model of clinical treatment:
Observation, Evaluation, Instruction and Action.
And types of Archetypes are not attributes of the Reference Model
:19 AM
Subject: Re: AW: HL7 templates/archetypes
On Oct 15, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Gerard Freriks wrote:
Dear Dana,
Why would you like to do that?
Theoretically it might be possible to map computationally constraints
imposed on one model to others imposed on an other, where both
I believe it is very hard to accept the dogmatic approach of Gerard Freriks
once again :-(
I thought we would have stopped, working on the implementable harmonization
artifacts. It has been proven to work with HL7 v3 messages.
For clinical content it does not matter at all in which technical
In een bericht met de datum 15-10-2006 23:54:28 West-Europa (zomertijd),
schrijft gfrer at luna.nl:
What might be possible in a way, is to transform from CEN to HL7 and back
again when a R-MIM is used that is an agreed mapping of the CEN/tc251 EN13606
part 1 Reference Model using the RIM.
Dear William,
I am currently working on the creation of Diabetes related archetypes
based on common archetypes. These archetypes are used to be specialised
in templates for use in diabetes protocol support systems.
Please, can you provide me with one example where you have an HL7
compliant
Gregory Woodhouse wrote:
On Oct 15, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Gerard Freriks wrote:
Dear Dana,
Why would you like to do that?
Theoretically it might be possible to map computationally constraints
imposed on one model to others imposed on an other, where both ways
express the same clinical
not matter at all in which technical
formalism or spec it is operationalised. A clinical concept sorting
out takes 2 weeks, transforming from HL7 to Open EHR takes 15 minutes.
Hi William,
I think one needs to be careful with such claims. Properly designing
archetypes can take quite a lot
Williamtfgoossen at cs.com wrote:
In een bericht met de datum 15-10-2006 23:54:28 West-Europa
(zomertijd), schrijft gfrer at luna.nl:
What might be possible in a way, is to transform from CEN to HL7 and
back again when a R-MIM is used that is an agreed mapping of the
CEN/tc251 EN13606
or
presented or discussed several times at various occasions, are:
Harmonisation: CEN and HL7
Harmonisation between CEN EN13606 EHRcom and HL7v2 is not taking place.
Harmonisation between CEN EN13606 plus its Archetypes and HL7v3
message artefacts is not possible.
Harmonisation between CEN and HL7
William,
Since when is it a lie when one states his opinion?
Read my other e-mail where I state more opinions and provide some
arguments.
Read in that e-mail also the fact that CEN/tc251 EN13606 and OpenEHR
are based on many years of RD and real implementations.
EN13606 EHRcom is factual NOT
401 - 500 of 566 matches
Mail list logo
