Jump to navigation Jump to search
Note: Please keep the content on this page polite, and insightful. Content here is public, and also community moderated.
Please add your points as a bullet under here. Links to other pages welcome.
- Grahame: Keep it simple as can be - implementers first
- Ann's list of 4:
- Clear separation of infrastructure and clinical content. (or clear separation of definitional knowledge and effective exchange - without breaking the connection)
- Registry of templates / models / DCM / archetypes needs to be operational asap
- Can we make them available through a website/wiki? Less computable metadata, but quicker availability. (Gerald)
- OpenEHR has one. What is it that you want this one to achieve? (Grahame) http://www.openehr.org/knowledge/
- Netherlands has two:
- CDISC work on Share: http://http://www.cdisc.org/cdisc-share
- Korea EHR project: http://www.clinicalcontentsmodel.org
- Intermountain Healthcare: http://intermountainhealthcare.org/CEM/Pages/LicenseAgreement.aspx
- US National Cancer Institute: https://cdebrowser.nci.nih.gov/CDEBrowser/
- Proper rules for transformations from different model artifacts to other artifacts, and validation of these.
- Clear migration strategy, which is tested to work, before changing HL7 v3 proper to not frustrate the ongoing implementations which are now just starting to be moving ahead (Alexander)
- Rene: implementers either need PIIM for MDA implementations, OR simplified wire format - with normative associated schema.
- This is AND/OR, not XOR, correct? (Gerald)
- Yes, AND/OR, although most implementers will choose to use one XOR the other (e.g. if the scope of the project is limited to a very few models, use a simplified wire format. If the project uses tons of models, use MDA). HL7 needs to provide implementers with both options. (Rene)
Concrete next Steps
For actual things that should be done
- ahh.... ?