Dear Heather,
I understand you have additional comments for the ISO DTS 13972. That is fine and important for this round.
What strikes me is that you see a disconnect between clinical models such as open EHR archetypes and governance procedures and tools such as CKM with the ISO DTS 13972.
As you say OpenEHR has a long term experience in clinical modelling. That is way that is used as an important example in this ISO work in particular on the repository side, that is based on Sebastian Gardes original presentation in Brisbane where this work started in 2007. I hope that the change requests you submitted and that were accepted by the ISO expert team do reflect the CKM changes over time.
of course the ISO work focuses on the conceptual parts like in the archetypes, and the logical parts such as dataelements, datatypes, code bindings and so on, like archetypes. But it leaves implementation specifications to other parts, where the difference with OpenEHR is intentionally maintained.
I am quite puzzled by your comments by the way. I think ISO DTS 13972 is a standard that strongly supports clinical modelling, including OpenEHR archetypes, but to enhance semantic interoperability also clinical models based on alternative paradigms are taken into account.
That is very important to offer other legacy systems a migration strategy to connect.
This is also appreciated in the CIMI work in which we cooperate. The CIMI reference model is consistent with the ISO 13972 clinical model specification.
Only is you specify patient demographics, location and provider data in each model, or as a separate reused model is a minor difference nothing more than a style issue.
I look forward to your comments.
Vriendelijke groet,
William Goossen
Project lead ISO13972 DTS.