difference and relationship between openEHR and EN13606

Bert Verhees bert.verhees at rosa.nl
Fri Aug 28 18:03:27 EDT 2015


I agree it is a balancing act in how far the semantics should be in the 
RM or in the archetypes.
Both ways have their pro and contra.
Thanks for explaining it

Bert


On 28-08-15 19:17, Thomas Beale wrote:
> Hi Bert,
>
> On 28/08/2015 16:32, Bert Verhees wrote:
>> On 27-08-15 19:54, Thomas Beale wrote:
>>> I would suggest that CIMI has been simiplified to the point of not 
>>> being directly usable as an RM by openEHR or 13606 - most of the 
>>> needed context information is gone in CIMI, and it doesn't 
>>> distinguish any kind of 'Entry' or clinical statement.
>>
>> Are you saying, that the context information from the reference model 
>> is not used?
>
> the CIMI RM 
> <https://github.com/opencimi/rm/blob/master/model/Release-3.0.4/BMM/CIMI-RM-3.0.4-generated-from-UML.bmm#>has 
> no context information in it.
>
>>
>>>
>>> This was a conscious choice in the CIMI community, designed to get 
>>> buy-in from a much wider range of stakeholders than openEHR or 13606 
>>> deals with. Technically, the CIMI approach is to soft-model nearly 
>>> everything in 'reference archetypes'.
>>
>> and the archetypes fill in the missing reference model context parts?
>
> that's the idea.
>
>>
>> If so, then this makes the two level modeling approach, of course, 
>> much more flexible, a kind of new database approach/technique, usable 
>> for virtual anything.
>
> it makes it more flexible in one sense, but also harder for 
> implementers - now they cannot know where even basic context like 
> subject, times, locations etc are - all that has to be obtained from 
> archetypes. The 'flexibility' comes with a price...
>
> What goes in any particular RM for some particular domain or industry 
> needs to be the result of careful analysis of
>
>   * the need for being able to build reliable software components that
>     can assume some things
>   * the need for a base model with enough useful primitives that it
>     doesn't force endless repeated modelling of the same basic
>     concepts in archetypes
>   * but sufficient flexibility so that all the variability of the
>     domain, and also localization can be accommodated.
>
> It's a balancing act.
>
> So far in openEHR, the context and most other structures etc have 
> proven to be good. We'll probably get rid of / simplify the ITEM_TREE 
> stuff in Release 1.1, but I can't imagine getting rid of most of the 
> other semantics.
>
> - thomas
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150829/8c6b4927/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-technical mailing list