Is reversible mapping between FHIR and Archetypes possible? -

i'm trying understand risks involved in 1 system 'speaking fhir' , 'speaking openehr/archetypes'. observation, questionnaire, device , patient resources.

can 2 content formats mapped between each other seamlessly, possibly utilizing extensions required? major issues in such mapping, , there people/organisations/vendors have done such mappings?

the 2 formats can mapped 1 another, possibly not seemlessly. differ fundamentally in scope , intent. , there's different issues each resource ask about

• openehr doesn't have fixed patient. standard patient archetype on openehr ckm seems perfunctory, , includes things fhir puts in other resources (e.g. coverage), , has no coverage can see important concepts in fhir active.

• i'm not sure device manifests in openehr world. perhaps agent resource?

• questionnaire doesn't have openehr equivalent directly, except maybe templated archetype pretty questionnaire, though don't think intent have dizzying myriad of templated archetypes way fhir expects there questionnaires of no particular fixed semantics

• observation - openehr doesn't have base observation, except defined in reference model. base observation kind of compatible fhir observation real work in observation archetypes, , there's lots of them. many make variable assumptions underlying reference model, , how observations work. , base fhir observation doesn't handle things openehr reference model does, such time series.

i know of no organizations have done systematic mappings of particular resources mention. there work afoot; instance, co-developed allergyintolerance resource , adversereactionrisk archetype, though don't know how sustainable prove. hard work align community processes , analyses, , might not repeatable

fundamentally, fhir , openehr doing different things, , have different strengths , weaknesses. system implementing both going manual mapping between it's internals , externals. perhaps change in future, not in hurry