I think so, and we've undertaken first steps in realising the
"vocabulary" transfer.
Best regards
Bernd
sradford@agora.co.uk wrote:
Bernd Blobel wrote:
I think so, and we've undertaken first steps in realising the
"vocabulary" transfer.Best regards
Bernd
Hi,
For GEHR the GOM and Archetypes were released as XML schemas (xsd
files). Now that openEHR is to use UML, will they be released in XMI
format?
The current form of GEHR archetypes is XML-instance. There is one schema for all archetypes (think of this as the "language of archetypes"). Each archetype is an instance of it. The same will continue with openEHR - one X-schema, and all archetypes are instances of that. That makes life very easy - especially for writinng authoring tools.
The alternative is to make each archetype a schema of its own. We tried this nearly 2 years ago, but it creates a lot of difficulties, and does not in fact reflect the intended semantics that archetypes are "structural constraint models" rather than specialised sub-schemas of a reference model.
Something else important with archetypes which will happen in the future is that we want people to author them in the presence of an underlying clinical ontology in the form of OIL or similar - something that provides guidance for creating sensible structures (e..g it would prevent someone creating a structure where "findings (percussion)" was under "findings (auscultation)"). We are just at the beginning of seeing how to do this, and it will no doubt take some time to be perfected....
- thomas beale