# AOM MOF mapping

**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742
**Category:** Technical (archive)
**Created:** [18 April 2008 13:50 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742 "2008-04-18T13:50:43Z")
**Posts on this page:** 14
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Adam\_Flinton](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/b782af/32.png) [@Adam\_Flinton](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Adam_Flinton)
#### Post date: [18 April 2008 13:50 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742/1 "2008-04-18T13:50:43Z")

</div>

In a reply wrt "On Information and Interoperability" I have noted that  
there is a move underway to try & produce an HL7 model (via EMF/MOF) for  
use in our /OHT eclipse tooling.

Has anyone looked at an AOM/MOF mapping?

If so any thoughts?

E.g. were one to want to sit down & do some Eclipse OpenEHR tooling then  
an obvious contender would be the Eclipse EMF/GMF & that would require a  
AOM\<\>EMF mapping & given EMF is a subset of MOF then ....etc.

Adam

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)
#### Post date: [19 April 2008 12:26 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742/2 "2008-04-19T12:26:19Z")

</div>

Hi Adam

This is something we would very much like to do. I would propose the following senario:

1. Develop a template for CCR

2. Document it (html) and enable data entry

3. Transform the template to MOF

4. Create data against the MOF

5. Transform the data entered against the template to CDA

6. Compare the data  
This would seem useful as a trial.

Cheers, Sam

Adam Flinton wrote:

> **(attachments)**
>
> ![OceanCsmall.png](https://discourse.openehr.org/images/transparent.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![William\_E\_Hammond](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@William\_E\_Hammond](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/William_E_Hammond)
#### Post date: [21 April 2008 14:12 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742/3 "2008-04-21T14:12:15Z")

</div>

Sam,

Help me understand this exercise if CCD exists?

Ed

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sam Heard  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<sam.heard@oceani  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;nformatics.com\> To  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sent by: adam.flinton@nhs.net, For openEHR  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;openehr-technical technical discussions  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-bounces@openehr. \<openehr-technical@openehr.org\>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;org cc  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Subject  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;04/19/2008 08:26 Re: AOM MOF mapping  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;AM  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Please respond to  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For openEHR  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;technical  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;discussions  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<openehr-technica  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;l@openehr.org\>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
Hi Adam

This is something we would very much like to do. I would propose the  
following senario:  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Develop a template for CCR  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Document it (html) and enable data entry  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Transform the template to MOF  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Create data against the MOF  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Transform the data entered against the template to CDA  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Compare the data  
This would seem useful as a trial.

Cheers, Sam

Adam Flinton wrote:  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In a reply wrt "On Information and Interoperability" I have noted  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;that  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;there is a move underway to try & produce an HL7 model (via EMF/MOF)  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;for  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;use in our /OHT eclipse tooling.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Has anyone looked at an AOM/MOF mapping?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If so any thoughts?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E.g. were one to want to sit down & do some Eclipse OpenEHR tooling  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;then  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;an obvious contender would be the Eclipse EMF/GMF & that would  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;require a  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;AOM\<\>EMF mapping & given EMF is a subset of MOF then ....etc.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Adam

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Thilo\_Schuler1](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/a4c791/32.png) [@Thilo\_Schuler1](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Thilo_Schuler1)
#### Post date: [21 April 2008 14:12 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742/4 "2008-04-21T14:12:26Z")

</div>

Adam & Sam

This is very interesting, kind of relates to my recent post "MDA/MDD & DSL".

For my med student brain I want to clarify that I get what Adam  
suggests. MOF has the idea of 4-layer meta-modelling. In the case of  
AOM/MOF mapping this would lead to this:

m3 (meta-metamodel) -\> MOF  
m2 (metamodel) -\> AOM and RM (?) [expressed as instance of MOF]  
m1 (model) -\> Archetypes  
m0 (data) -\> Archetype instances

Is that correct? I am especially curious whether the Reference Model  
(RM) as indicated above also needs to be expressed as MOF in the m2  
layer. I would presume so.

As Adam, suggested it makes sense to used the EMF infrastructure &  
tools (e.g. have a look at the screen-video  
[http://redmonk.com/tv/eclipse-emf-demo-large/](http://redmonk.com/tv/eclipse-emf-demo-large/) ) as their  
meta-metamodel Ecore is supposed to be pretty much EMOF (essential  
MOF) compliant.

@Sam: If I understand you correctly your trial design starts with an  
CCR-openEHR-template (i.e. several aggregated archetypes plus maybe  
further constraints). This would be the m1-layer. Before we could do  
that we would have to create the generic m2-layer.

Thilo

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)
#### Post date: [21 April 2008 22:41 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742/5 "2008-04-21T22:41:50Z")

</div>

Hi Ed

The process is really about bringing the clinical specifications into a common framework. From the openEHR perspective this involves:

- links to terminology developments to ensure a sustainable approach and transformations to a terminology only syntax if that proves useful
- links to implementations of these specifications in openEHR, CEN/ISO or CDA  
CCD is a paper and XML schema exercise to get CCR and CDA into the same semantic space, but there is no coherent approach as each are XML schemas and have a lot of attendant paper guides. As openEHR Archetypes are largely independent of any implementation concerns, it is possible to express the clinical content of the CCR as a Template entirely in terms of standard archetypes. From this, a specific schema (Template Data Schema) can be presented which should ideally map 1:1 with the clinical content of CCR. This allows integration of CCR into the openEHR space in a controlled manner with validation via the TDS.

As we have a growing number of Archetype to CDA transforms this allows production of CDA documents from the openEHR environment in a reusable manner. The full ‘pipeline’ of CCR instance → openEHR → CDA is therefore possible without intervention and with full standardised clinical content validation (as well as any constraints expressed in CCR via the template). openEHR users then have a means of dealing with CCR and CDA documents in the same environment (as well as v2 and XML etc) .

If people are ready to accept such transforms as a wonderful thing (or even useful) and we validate the outputs from the CCD perspective (remember it is a single transform per archetype so it should then work in any CDA document (assuming there is some standardisation in that environment) then it should be possible to get the MOF statement from AOM representation of an archetype. This will require some work but it would reduce concerns in the market.

By the way, what the pipeline offers to vendors and jurisdictions even as it stands is the possibility of building templates (always from archetypes) and creating a template data schema that maps to their own data model. If the data validates, then they can transform their data to openEHR and from there to CDA, CCR, v2 etc without understanding any of the complexities. Of course integration engines will perform something similar on a case by case basis.

I hope that is helpful, Sam

William E Hammond wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![William\_E\_Hammond](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@William\_E\_Hammond](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/William_E_Hammond)
#### Post date: [21 April 2008 23:31 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742/6 "2008-04-21T23:31:13Z")

</div>

Thanks for the response. I am not sure I agree that CCD is a paper, but I  
guess time will tell which is the way to go.

Looks like HL7 needs to decide where it fits in today's world and really  
promote that position. I for one think CCD has a lot of promise.

Ed

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sam Heard  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<sam.heard@oceani  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;nformatics.com\> To  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sent by: For openEHR technical discussions  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;openehr-technical \<openehr-technical@openehr.org\>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-bounces@openehr. cc  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;org  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Subject  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Re: AOM MOF mapping  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;04/21/2008 06:41  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;PM  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Please respond to  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For openEHR  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;technical  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;discussions  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<openehr-technica  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;l@openehr.org\>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
Hi Ed

The process is really about bringing the clinical specifications into a  
common framework. From the openEHR perspective this involves:  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;links to terminology developments to ensure a sustainable approach  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;and transformations to a terminology only syntax if that proves  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;useful  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;links to implementations of these specifications in openEHR, CEN/ISO  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;or CDA  
CCD is a paper and XML schema exercise to get CCR and CDA into the same  
semantic space, but there is no coherent approach as each are XML schemas  
and have a lot of attendant paper guides. As openEHR Archetypes are largely  
independent of any implementation concerns, it is possible to express the  
clinical content of the CCR as a Template entirely in terms of standard  
archetypes. From this, a specific schema (Template Data Schema) can be  
presented which should ideally map 1:1 with the clinical content of CCR.  
This allows integration of CCR into the openEHR space in a controlled  
manner with validation via the TDS.

As we have a growing number of Archetype to CDA transforms this allows  
production of CDA documents from the openEHR environment in a reusable  
manner. The full 'pipeline' of CCR instance -\> openEHR -\> CDA is therefore  
possible without intervention and with full standardised clinical content  
validation (as well as any constraints expressed in CCR via the template).  
openEHR users then have a means of dealing with CCR and CDA documents in  
the same environment (as well as v2 and XML etc) .

If people are ready to accept such transforms as a wonderful thing (or even  
useful) and we validate the outputs from the CCD perspective (remember it  
is a single transform per archetype so it should then work in any CDA  
document (assuming there is some standardisation in that environment) then  
it should be possible to get the MOF statement from AOM representation of  
an archetype. This will require some work but it would reduce concerns in  
the market.

By the way, what the pipeline offers to vendors and jurisdictions even as  
it stands is the possibility of building templates (always from archetypes)  
and creating a template data schema that maps to their own data model. If  
the data validates, then they can transform their data to openEHR and from  
there to CDA, CCR, v2 etc without understanding any of the complexities. Of  
course integration engines will perform something similar on a case by case  
basis.

I hope that is helpful, Sam

William E Hammond wrote:  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sam,

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Help me understand this exercise if CCD exists?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ed

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sam Heard

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<sam.heard@oceani

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;nformatics.com\>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;To  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sent by: adam.flinton@nhs.net, For  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;openEHR  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;openehr-technical technical discussions

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-bounces@openehr.  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<openehr-technical@openehr.org\>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;org  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;cc

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Subject  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;04/19/2008 08:26 Re: AOM MOF mapping

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;AM

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Please respond to

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For openEHR

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;technical

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;discussions

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<openehr-technica

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;l@openehr.org\>

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hi Adam

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This is something we would very much like to do. I would propose the  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;following senario:  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Develop a template for CCR  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Document it (html) and enable data entry  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Transform the template to MOF  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Create data against the MOF  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Transform the data entered against the template to CDA  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Compare the data  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This would seem useful as a trial.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cheers, Sam

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Adam Flinton wrote:  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In a reply wrt "On Information and Interoperability" I have  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;noted  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;that  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;there is a move underway to try & produce an HL7 model (via  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;EMF/MOF)  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;for  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;use in our /OHT eclipse tooling.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Has anyone looked at an AOM/MOF mapping?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If so any thoughts?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E.g. were one to want to sit down & do some Eclipse OpenEHR  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;tooling  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;then  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;an obvious contender would be the Eclipse EMF/GMF & that would  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;require a  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;AOM\<\>EMF mapping & given EMF is a subset of MOF then ....etc.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Adam

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)
#### Post date: [22 April 2008 05:46 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742/7 "2008-04-22T05:46:05Z")

</div>

Hi Ed

I am sorry if I sounded disparaging in anyway. I was referring to the  
implementation guide which is the basis for various schematron and other  
approaches (as I understand it). I am sure that a lot of people will  
choose CDA and CCD particularly in the near future. I know you are  
interested in the clinical specifications and have formed a clinical  
council. I think it would be wonderful to see the European effort line  
up with the US effort in the clinical specifications area around the CEN  
and hopefully ISO approach. I understand the difficulties.

A small group of enthusiasts working at a distance has got us to this  
point. The openEHR Foundation is planning to move into formal  
relationships with a number of agencies and we have the prospect of  
alignment of a number of initiatives. I believe a small group working on  
AOM -\> MOF would be very useful and give a way forward to a single  
logical representation of clinical content. Clinicians around the globe  
will appreciate this.

Cheers, Sam

William E Hammond wrote:

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![William\_E\_Hammond](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@William\_E\_Hammond](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/William_E_Hammond)
#### Post date: [22 April 2008 13:41 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742/8 "2008-04-22T13:41:48Z")

</div>

Thanks Sam. I agree with the need for the alignment you suggest. Maybe  
the future does hold some hope of working to a common goal.

Ed

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sam Heard  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<sam.heard@oceani  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;nformatics.com\> To  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sent by: For openEHR technical discussions  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;openehr-technical \<openehr-technical@openehr.org\>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-bounces@openehr. cc  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;org  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Subject  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Re: AOM MOF mapping  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;04/22/2008 01:46  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;AM  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Please respond to  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For openEHR  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;technical  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;discussions  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<openehr-technica  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;l@openehr.org\>  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  
Hi Ed

I am sorry if I sounded disparaging in anyway. I was referring to the  
implementation guide which is the basis for various schematron and other  
approaches (as I understand it). I am sure that a lot of people will  
choose CDA and CCD particularly in the near future. I know you are  
interested in the clinical specifications and have formed a clinical  
council. I think it would be wonderful to see the European effort line  
up with the US effort in the clinical specifications area around the CEN  
and hopefully ISO approach. I understand the difficulties.

A small group of enthusiasts working at a distance has got us to this  
point. The openEHR Foundation is planning to move into formal  
relationships with a number of agencies and we have the prospect of  
alignment of a number of initiatives. I believe a small group working on  
AOM -\> MOF would be very useful and give a way forward to a single  
logical representation of clinical content. Clinicians around the globe  
will appreciate this.

Cheers, Sam

William E Hammond wrote:

> Thanks for the response. I am not sure I agree that CCD is a paper, but

I

> guess time will tell which is the way to go.
> 
> Looks like HL7 needs to decide where it fits in today's world and really  
> promote that position. I for one think CCD has a lot of promise.
> 
> Ed
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sam Heard

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<sam.heard@oceani

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;nformatics.com\>

To

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sent by: For openEHR technical discussions

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;openehr-technical \<openehr-technical@openehr.org\>

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-bounces@openehr.

cc

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;org

Subject

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Re: AOM MOF mapping

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;04/21/2008 06:41

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;PM

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Please respond to

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For openEHR

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;technical

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;discussions

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<openehr-technica

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;l@openehr.org\>

> Hi Ed
> 
> The process is really about bringing the clinical specifications into a  
> common framework. From the openEHR perspective this involves:  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;links to terminology developments to ensure a sustainable approach  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;and transformations to a terminology only syntax if that proves  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;useful  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;links to implementations of these specifications in openEHR,

CEN/ISO

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;or CDA  
> CCD is a paper and XML schema exercise to get CCR and CDA into the same  
> semantic space, but there is no coherent approach as each are XML schemas  
> and have a lot of attendant paper guides. As openEHR Archetypes are

largely

> independent of any implementation concerns, it is possible to express the  
> clinical content of the CCR as a Template entirely in terms of standard  
> archetypes. From this, a specific schema (Template Data Schema) can be  
> presented which should ideally map 1:1 with the clinical content of CCR.  
> This allows integration of CCR into the openEHR space in a controlled  
> manner with validation via the TDS.
> 
> As we have a growing number of Archetype to CDA transforms this allows  
> production of CDA documents from the openEHR environment in a reusable  
> manner. The full 'pipeline' of CCR instance -\> openEHR -\> CDA is

therefore

> possible without intervention and with full standardised clinical content  
> validation (as well as any constraints expressed in CCR via the

template).

> openEHR users then have a means of dealing with CCR and CDA documents in  
> the same environment (as well as v2 and XML etc) .
> 
> If people are ready to accept such transforms as a wonderful thing (or

even

> useful) and we validate the outputs from the CCD perspective (remember it  
> is a single transform per archetype so it should then work in any CDA  
> document (assuming there is some standardisation in that environment)

then

> it should be possible to get the MOF statement from AOM representation of  
> an archetype. This will require some work but it would reduce concerns in  
> the market.
> 
> By the way, what the pipeline offers to vendors and jurisdictions even as  
> it stands is the possibility of building templates (always from

archetypes)

> and creating a template data schema that maps to their own data model. If  
> the data validates, then they can transform their data to openEHR and

from

> there to CDA, CCR, v2 etc without understanding any of the complexities.

Of

> course integration engines will perform something similar on a case by

case

> basis.
> 
> I hope that is helpful, Sam
> 
> William E Hammond wrote:  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sam,
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Help me understand this exercise if CCD exists?
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ed
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sam Heard
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<sam.heard@oceani
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;nformatics.com\>  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;To  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sent by: adam.flinton@nhs.net, For  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;openEHR  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;openehr-technical technical discussions
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-bounces@openehr.  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<openehr-technical@openehr.org\>  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;org  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;cc
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Subject  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;04/19/2008 08:26 Re: AOM MOF mapping
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;AM
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Please respond to
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For openEHR
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;technical
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;discussions
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;\<openehr-technica
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;l@openehr.org\>
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hi Adam
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This is something we would very much like to do. I would propose

the

> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;following senario:  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Develop a template for CCR  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Document it (html) and enable data entry  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Transform the template to MOF  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Create data against the MOF  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Transform the data entered against the template to CDA  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Compare the data  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This would seem useful as a trial.
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Cheers, Sam
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Adam Flinton wrote:  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In a reply wrt "On Information and Interoperability" I have  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;noted  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;that  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;there is a move underway to try & produce an HL7 model (via  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;EMF/MOF)  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;for  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;use in our /OHT eclipse tooling.
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Has anyone looked at an AOM/MOF mapping?
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If so any thoughts?
> 
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E.g. were one to want to sit down & do some Eclipse OpenEHR  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;tooling  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;then  
> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;an obvious contender would be the Eclipse EMF/GMF & that

would

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Thilo\_Schuler1](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/a4c791/32.png) [@Thilo\_Schuler1](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Thilo_Schuler1)
#### Post date: [23 April 2008 10:04 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742/9 "2008-04-23T10:04:28Z")

</div>

Has this email gotten through? Wondering since Sam recently described  
problems with the list (Eric's SNOMED post).

Is my assumption regarding MOF (see below) right?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Thilo\_Schuler1](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/a4c791/32.png) [@Thilo\_Schuler1](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Thilo_Schuler1)
#### Post date: [23 April 2008 10:07 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742/10 "2008-04-23T10:07:43Z")

</div>

Sam

In your opinion what is the advantage of expressing templates in MOF?  
Can't the described exersise CCR-\>openEHR-\>CDA be done already only  
with openEHR/Ocean tools? Is to have a more indepedent intermediary  
format?

Thilo

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Tim\_Cook2](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/57b2e6/32.png) [@Tim\_Cook2](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Tim_Cook2)
#### Post date: [23 April 2008 10:19 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742/11 "2008-04-23T10:19:05Z")

</div>

Yes it did. I know; Gmail's refusal of your own emails sent to mailing  
lists is a pain in the butt! I had not having mine on my client.

Cheers,  
Tim

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![system](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f0a1dedb20c42747bddcafd6c7df9db5f34f003c.svg) [@system](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/system)
#### Post date: [23 April 2008 13:55 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742/12 "2008-04-23T13:55:21Z")

</div>

No Tilo - it is to enable archetypes and templates to be used directly in HL7.  
Sam

Thilo Schuler wrote:

> **(attachments)**
>
> ![OceanInformaticsl.JPG](https://discourse.openehr.org/images/transparent.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Thilo\_Schuler1](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/a4c791/32.png) [@Thilo\_Schuler1](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Thilo_Schuler1)
#### Post date: [23 April 2008 14:45 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742/13 "2008-04-23T14:45:23Z")

</div>

Sorry, still don't get it completely.

What do you mean by "use directly in HL7"? Do you refer to HL7 CDA  
only or to any HL7 message? Could you please provide a little more  
detail how MOF would help with that.

Thanks. Thilo

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Adam\_Flinton](https://discourse.openehr.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/b782af/32.png) [@Adam\_Flinton](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Adam_Flinton)
#### Post date: [24 April 2008 13:29 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/aom-mof-mapping/14742/14 "2008-04-24T13:29:05Z")

</div>

Thilo Schuler wrote:

> Sorry, still don't get it completely.
> 
> What do you mean by "use directly in HL7"? Do you refer to HL7 CDA  
> only or to any HL7 message? Could you please provide a little more  
> detail how MOF would help with that.
> 
> Thanks. Thilo

I am looking at it more from the EMF/EMOF direction.

i.e. could one/would one/ how easy would it be to create an EMF/EMOF  
model of the AOM which one could then use wrt graphical editing, Model  
diffing (e.g. using the EMF compare tooling), Model to model transform etc.

However fitting an OpenEHR artefact within a CDA or similar document  
(where both are within the same consistent model) is a worthy goal in  
itself.

Adam