Re: [architecture] A Proposal to create a Universal Namespace for Health Information Architectures

to go narrow for a moment, giving every resource of every EHR a unique URL makes all the sense in the world and remember, current HIE specs overlay unique ids on those portions of EHR data that go into CCDs. Each publisher has a unique id and the contents of their documents are unique in this context. The main problem with the "standard" mechanism is that it uses OIDs ( Oy Vey OIDs! ) Why use a technology last seen as promising in 1992 when you can use URLs? To scope up to part of what Tom is addressing: give every VistA resource a URL and that's what I did/had to do in FMQL. Every VistA instance gets a unique base URL (ex/ ) and once inside VistA, files establish context (file 2 is Patient so ) and their contents have unique ids (IENs) so record 9 in file 2 is , the 301ist Vital Measurement is ... This scales and it's unambiguous. Addressing and identifying information from an additional VistA (or EHR) is easy - just add a new base URL ( , ...) You could say URLs liberate data, establishing each piece as a standalone entity. If you think about it, nothing properly exists without identity. Two asides: - if you move things: newvista.../2-9 owl:sameAs ... - "same concept in two vistas": owl:sameas anothervista/50-55 As for being within OSEHRA's scope: if you want to document all the VistAs running and converge their code bases, then identifying each unambiguously is a good start. If you want to document where they differ, then identifying their content unambiguously is mandatory. You can't compare and contrast without identity. I realize that the VA is reluctant to publish the setup of their VistAs though that would be a great step forward for all: were there to be a place for identifying these setups, a base URL assigned by OSEHRA then maybe ... ( ...), Conor On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Stephen.Hufnagel wrote: > This is an interesting proposal, which would require venture capital to > startup. My understanding is that Tom is proposing a Facebook or > analogue for healthcare information, which would be managed on the web. The > big questions are > > - Who owns and manages the information in the “cloud”. > - Will clinicians trust cloud information and will they be willing > to add information to the cloud "repository". > - How are medical-legal issues resolved > > PHRs are somewhat similar to Tom’s proposal and they have had mixed > results. In all of these proposals, one must follow the money … who is > willing to pay for this service? This is the PHR and also HIE problem!. > Facebook, Google and have advertising/sales business models to > subsidize the perceived free services. > > Define a credible business model and I would support this concept. > Otherwise, I believe this proposal is beyond OSEHRA’s scope and capability … > -- > Full post: > > Manage my subscriptions: > > Stop emails for this post: > >