Link between goals and other clinical concepts
bert.verhees at rosa.nl
Tue Jun 24 04:24:51 EDT 2014
On 24-06-14 02:28, pablo pazos wrote:
> creating CLUSTERs for all the stuff than .....
I missed a part of the discussion, but maybe I get the point, or I see
my hobbyhorse everywhere. ;-)
I have been thinking about this some time, and I started a few times a
discussion about this subject. But I must say, there is not much
enthusiasm for this idea on this list.
Let me explain compactly.
Take a look at the EN13606 RM which is already much more generic then
OpenEHR. You can model archetypes for it with the LinkEHR archetype-editor.
For a developer, it is nice to have a generic reference model, it can
help you create generic code in the application/kernel.
For a domain-modeler (a medical-information-specialist, f.e.) it is nice
to have semantics in the reference model. It helps thinking about how to
model an archetype for a specific purpose.
There is a way in between, which can serve both groups:
You need to bring order in the chaos of generic CLUSTER_archetypes. You
can do a lot with archetype-slots with defined reg-expressions, so in
this way, the generic archetypebase canconsolidate in an
information-model which can be used by the domain-modeler.
This information-model needs to be defined, controlled and documented.
Then you reach the area of proprietary.
Domain-modelers need besides adapting the reference model, conforming to
your defined proprietary information model.
And, on second thought, anyway, you need to adapt a good message-model,
because not the whole world will run OpenEHR.
The nice thing about two level modeling is that, this is all possible.
More information about the openEHR-clinical