mlhim-owners team mailing list archive

[Timothy Cook <timothywayne.cook@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 14:11, Luciana Tricai Cavalini
<lutricav@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[EventContext]
> This is a typical class completely full of context and EHR-oriented (EHR
> somewhere, what's more problematic). You can probably model all that
> knowledge on an AdminEntry class CCD and/or as any Entity class CCD.

Exactly.

> I knew I remembered that; I just wasn't sure. This is the class you use
> under the CareEntry child class Action. It is like History under
> Observation, sort of. Agree to eliminate if Action is being eliminated.

Similar to.  But it was put into openEHR for the ability to model a
State Machine.  Since that functionality is actually part of an
implementation it doesn't need to be here.

> OK, Relationship replaces Link and it keeps the same attributes? Is it
> just a renaming decision? But we already renamed so many classes, why
> not this one?

I don't have the original openEHR definition at hand and Link has
already been changed in MLHIM.  However, Relationship was designed to
allow for the semantics of the relationship to be entered from a
standard ontology.  <red_faced>I see now that the relationship_type
attribute is missing.  </red faced> In this way you could use 'is-a',
'contains', 'part-of', etc.  Link did not have that ability and I
personally think Relationship is a better word for the function.  :-)

>>
>> Why do you think it is important to remove "Feeder" from those classes?

I just think they are unneeded and can be confusing to developers.


>>> PS.  Just as an FYI for those that may not be following the other
>>> mailing lists.  HL7v3, openEHR and 13606 are all currently pursuing
>>> various types of simplifications.  Many of which we have already done
>>> in MLHIM.
>>
>> I wonder if at least a tiny proportion of that is not due to the
>> existence of MLHIM itself. Well, about the discrete release of the
>> Template Designer as a freeware software I am almost convinced it was.

Well, even in my most arrogant hour (and they can be big and often)  I
wouldn't suggest that to be the case.  I doubt they even know we are
here.  :-)

If we were that significant in their eyes then there would be people
from those groups on the mailing lists.

Cheers,
Tim