[news.eclipse.technology.ohf] Re: Interoperability

[Grahame Grieve <grahameg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Don

Don J wrote:
> First, I note that the term "interoperability", when used in the proposal,
> seems to be referring to lower-level "semantic" and upper-level syntactic
> interoperability without addressing underlying transport-level
> interoperability issues.

I think that transport is in scope, but you are certainly right that
semantic interoperability is where the focus will be

> While the text mentions the HL7 CDA, it indicates that it may be taken into
> account "as the project proceeds". However, it would seem that early support
> for CDA-CRS ("Care Record Summary") standard is desirable. The relative
> "stand-alone" and cross-organisation nature of many use cases (e.g. transfer
> of care) that build upon the CDA make it ideal for early support on the OHF.
> Both the HL7 CDA-CRS and the similar ASTM CCR ("Continuity of Care Record")
> standards have been on a fast track because of their prospect for immediate
> benefits to healthcare providers and patients even when an existing patient
> record and practice management system is still paper based. The availability
> of a generic CDA processor plug-in would be a valuable resource to
> healthcare application developers.

What do you think that a "generic CDA processor plug-in" would do?

Grahame