One thing that could really help this along would be to have the two respective online communities (chat.fhir.org and discourse.openehr.org) connected formally.
However, this would require HL7 to move to its mothballed Discourse instance (http://community.fhir.org/), which likely be highly painful for them. Would be worth doing if this collaboration has the potential to be revolution inducing, though.
Funny, I was just checking the fhir char for openEHR messages around this announcement. Could we set up two one way channels? E.g. an openEHR discourse topic that ārepostsā all messages from a specific fhir chat channel. And a fhir chat channel that ārepostsā all messages from a specific discourse topic?
I like discourse much more than zullip, so I can definitely recommend it to the FHIR community. But Iām afraid suggesting fhir moves to discourse in order to communicate with openehr is a bit too bit a trigger for a meta level standards war
On the HL7 Zulip thereās a Zulip channel - you could reach out to the
Zulip team to see what their plans re synchronization are. The HL7 Zulip
has 28k users, so a switch to any other platform is unlikely to happen
anytime soon. Having ActivityPub support in such forums would be a very
nice feature.
I donāt think HL7 and openEHR are that tightly coupled, weāve already seen issues where X has a information model focus (openEHR and FHIR Profiles) and Y has process/workflow focus (FHIR API and IHE).
Iād be worried that these types of users are coming from different contexts and weāve already had issues around context.
I think an ActivityPub link for discourse would be a great feature in any case. That would also allow people to get notified of (and in time maybe also follow and participate in?) discussions from Mastodon and other Fediverse services
There has been activities in HL7 for quite some time to build clinical applications based on standards (RIMBAA, AID). So I think openEHR would be closer to this particular interest group. Letās just have a try and see what happens
Speaking as the former co-chair of both these HL7 groups: indeed, RIMBAA
was focused on the use of the HL7v3 RIM as a persistence model, an idea
that was taken up by some vendors in production systems. However, RIMBAA
gradually became the āwider HL7 implementers communityā - discussing
implementation best practices in general. When FHIR came along, and HL7
shifted its focus from the standards authors (HL7v3 modelling pundits)
to the standards implementers, and FHIR connectathons and DevDays came
along, the work of AID had been ādoneā (i.e. there now as a solid
platform for implementers to exchange best practices and ideas), which
is why we disbanded AID, probably 10 years ago or so.
The information model focus of OpenEHR adds a real benefit to HL7. We
still have to sell the approach that having information models (e.g. at
a country level) is a good and valuable concept, the Netherlands (whilst
not OpenEHR based) has its own set of national information models, and
even USCDI (coarse grained as it is) is a national information model.
HL7, FHIR, and openEHR are different communities with different foci. So they have different ways of communicating, and we shouldnāt seek to change that. But they do have areas of overlapping interests, and in those areas, setting up exchanges between the social media channels might make sense. Iāll keep that idea in mind as we discuss this further
As a member of both communities as well as other (non-health) tech and cyber-standards communities, I personally donāt expect to have only one community. Even in the HL7/FHIR community, each workgroup has its own communication channels.
The key is really collaboration. I could see a use case for having some kind of aggregation RSS -style feed as information evolves with the ability for each community member to get as involved as they want.
Regarding the collaboration tools, could we set up a space on the openEHR wiki, (or even a space shared with HL7)? Iād like for other people to edit my list, and create pages for a subtopic. @thomas.beale or @sebastian.iancu, maybe the best place to start would be the specification confluence? I couldnāt find a fitting top level page, and was hesitant to create a new one without permission.
Posted this on zullip thread this morning, I think this one wasnāt on your list @joostholslag
I have uploaded a transformation of all available CKM archetypes as FHIR Logical models to github
Pim Volkert (Health-RI) reacted to your message: