Marking Actions as something 'done', 'not done', etc is normal of
course. In openEHR, such actions can be matched up with states in the
abstract state machine, so that you can query afterward on what is
active, suspended, completed etc. But things like 'intended' are not
meaningful possibilities for acts already performed. You may not like
the name 'Instruction' in openEHR (we had to pick something), but it
distinguishes between what has not yet been done and what has already
been done - i.e. between future time and past time. That's a key
distinction. Most workflow engines work this way, because the structure
of something in the future can contain possible paths, whereas what was
already done doesn't, it is just a series of events that actually
occurred - there is no branching or conditionality.
- thomas
On 10/12/2011 17:45, Eunice Ab wrote:
> Hi
>
> I thought the data structures were to support the clinicians workflow
> view. I just wondered why you mentioned the 'Act' model would not work.
>
> As Jag explained all the things he listed including instructions are
> all actions ..... and why do we have to restrict the definition of 'an
> action' to what is done rather what it is actually... Even the models
> in SNOMED CT supports these as all being its term for actions ....
> 'procedures'.
>
> I totally agree with Jag's suggestions for having attributes to mark
> these as not done, done etc.
>
> Thanks.
_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical@...
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
