Link between goals and other clinical concepts

Bert Verhees bert.verhees at
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.

good luck

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list