difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606
"Gerard Freriks (privé)"
gfrer at luna.nl
Wed Aug 26 20:08:21 EDT 2015
Next week we will meet in Brussels and discuss the proposals, discussion papers by the various working parties.
I think that the RM and data types will be simplified.
leaving semantics to be dealt with at the archetype level using standardised archetype patterns.
(participations, demographics, and things like ranges and more)
On behalf of the EN13606 Association I take part in the CIMI working group.
CIMI will help create archetype patterns.
CIMI models will be able to be converted to EN13606 artefacts.
And all in spite of the fact that CIMI has a very simple and strange RM derived from 13606-1. (At least that is the way I look at it)
The strange thing being the fact that they have defined a ‘Super ENTRY’ class that can contain the ‘normal’ ENTRY class.
They designed this because of the need to model for instance panels as one entity and each of its components.
(I’m of the opinion that the present 13606 RM can deal with all the CIMI requirements. This is how I create panels usually.)
gfrer at luna.nl <mailto:gfrer at luna.nl>
> On 26 aug. 2015, at 17:49, Erik Sundvall <erik.sundvall at liu.se> wrote:
> Where can one find proposals/diagrams describing the refreshed RM (reference model) in the new 13606 revision? Will 13606 keep using the old data types or harmonize more with CIMI or OpenEHR?
> Is there now consensus/majority regarding using ADL/AOM 2.0 for 13606? If so, great!
> When it comes to "simplifying" the RM (or perhaps moving complexity to another meta/design-pattern layer) I think CIMI has gone further than 13606. Are there any plans of aligning 13606 with CIMI?
> //Erik Sundvall
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openEHR-technical