# Phenopackets 2.0 review

**URL:** <https://discourse.openehr.org/t/phenopackets-2-0-review/1503>\
**Category:** Clinical\
**Created:** [28 April 2021 09:21 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/phenopackets-2-0-review/1503 "2021-04-28T09:21:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erik.sundvall](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/erik.sundvall/32/1961_2.png) [@erik.sundvall](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/erik.sundvall)\
**Post date:** [28 April 2021 09:21 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/phenopackets-2-0-review/1503/1 "2021-04-28T09:21:17Z")

</div>

An email from Global Alliance for Genomics and Health ([GA4GH](https://www.ga4gh.org/)) invites to a review of Phenopackets 2.0, see: [Open for Comment: Phenopackets v2.0](http://ga4gh-4048059.hs-sites.com/open-for-comment-phenopackets-v2.0) (Deadline May 27)

A lot of new EHR content is represented in v 2.0 so it’s likely clever if people with knowledge of openEHR have a look at [the new v 2.0 of the Phenopacket Schema](https://phenopackets-schema.readthedocs.io/en/v2/index.html) to figure out how reasonable alignment can be done between shared interests in Phenopackets and openEHR based EHRs.

The schema documentation contains a [FHIR Implementation Guide](https://phenopackets-schema.readthedocs.io/en/v2/fhir.html). Suggesting text for a page with “openEHR Implementation Guide” to the spec might be a good idea.

This discussion thread could for example be a place to suggest content for such a page.