I completely agree with you, but if we do that, we need a very clear governance and versioning policy (and be willing to stick to it). And define the minimal access API as soon as possible ;)
2011/9/7 Ian McNicoll <Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com>: > Hi Diego, > > I am strongly in favour of establishing a community-led/ > lightly-governed clinical knowledge repository as suggested by Shinji, > particularly if we can arrange some sort of federation between this > and a number of locally or regionally managed repositories. > > However, these must sit quite separately from the openEHR CKM or any > other nationally governed repositories. I would anticipate that many > of the archetypes from this repositories would find there way into the > governed CKMs but Shinji's comments about needing the freedom to > experiment outside the necessary restrictions of CKM are absolutely > correct. I appreciate that many of the current archetypes are still in > draft and as you say 'use at your own risk' but we are trying to avoid > having competing representations in this 'interoperability' space. > That is not to imply that Shinji's work is poor or incorrect, just > that it often uses different design patterns and approaches. If we > adopt a free-for-all approach to CKM now, it will become impossible to > resolve later. However, IMO, this also makes the establishment of a > community repository even more essential so that some of the excellent > ideas that Shinji and others are developing have a place to grow and > flourish. > > I would welcome suggestions for a repository framework e.g GitHub that > might support a community repository, particularly one that supports a > distributed/federated approach. > > Snowcloud have an open-source collaborative tool that has been used by > both ICNP (nursing terminology) and Wm Goosen's Netherland's DCM group > as a front end for their collaborative working. Derek Hoy, who runs > Snowcloud, would be happy to assist in setting up an instance for > openEHR, though we would have to consider hosting etc. > > This would not be trying to compete with the governed CKMs, rather > allow more free-flowing collaboration and early work-up of ideas. The > Foundation should, I believe, be prepared to support and endorse this > effort but I would expect it to be almost wholly community-driven and > governed. > > Further thoughts would be very welcome. > > Dr Ian McNicoll > office +44 (0)1536 414 994 > fax +44 (0)1536 516317 > mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 > skype ianmcnicoll > ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com > > Clinical Modelling Consultant,?Ocean Informatics, UK > openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge > Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL > BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org > > > > > On 6 September 2011 17:24, Diego Bosc? <yampeku at gmail.com> wrote: >> Good to hear about you! I hope everything is ok in Japan. >> I would encourage you to put the archetypes on the CKM anyway, as I would >> say that most of the available archetypes on the repository are in the >> same situation as your archetypes (the implicit 'use under your own >> responsibility') >> >> 2011/9/6 Shinji KOBAYASHI <skoba at moss.gr.jp>: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I have been suffered by sever jet lag after long trip, while I have >>> been thinking about this new white >>> paper and our local activity. I could not find such localisation >>> activity in this white paper, but please >>> consider and mention about such local activity. >>> I would like to show these two proposals. >>> 1) Local activity support. >>> As a global standard, localisation to each country or area is >>> necessary. ?My three years experience >>> to implementation of the Ruby codes, archetypes and template, we need >>> lots of localisation efforts >>> for Japanese use. I think this experience may be available to localise >>> for other countries. East Asian >>> countries people is keen in openEHR development and their engagements >>> are promising for their >>> health care. >>> >>> 2) ?Premature artefact repository >>> CKM provides us well-considered archetypes and templates. This is a >>> great knowledge resource >>> for mankind. However, to incubate archetype as a common concept takes >>> long time like vintage wine. >>> On the other hand, I need more agile movement for daily development. I >>> have developed about 50 >>> archetypes and 6 templates. These artefacts are still premature to >>> evaluate on CKM, but I would >>> like to discuss about my artefacts on line with many people. Yes, it >>> will be a 99% junk repository, >>> but 1% diamond would be a precious for our community. As Major league >>> cannot exist without >>> minor leagues, I think CKM needs such minor artefacts groups. >>> I am preparing to share them on GitHub, because anyone can use >>> repository for each use by fork >>> and merge request is useful. >>> I think the licence of this repository would adopt CC-BY-SA, is this >>> OK, Erik and Ian? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Shinji KOBAYASHI(in Japan, a path of typhoon.) >>> >>> 2011/9/6 Erik Sundvall <erik.sundvall at liu.se>: >>>> Thanks for replying Sam! >>>> >>>> Erik Wrote (to openEHR-technical at openehr.org): >>>>>> Was that whitepaper formally ratified by the new board, or by the old >>>>>> board, >>>>>> or is it's current state just a suggestion by Sam? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard <sam.heard at >>>> oceaninformatics.com> wrote: >>>>> [Sam Heard] The whitepaper was ratified by the participants in the >>>>> planning >>>>> process, the current Board (Profs. Kalra, Ingram and myself) and the new >>>>> Transitional Board. >>>> >>>> This is a bit worrying for the period until a broader board can be >>>> elected. I was hoping that somebody within the new board would be >>>> interested enough and have time to take licensing issues and community >>>> feedback seriously, let's hope that the board does a bit more research >>>> and community dialogue before ratifying a new version of this >>>> whitepaper. Could somebody from the board please confirm that you'll >>>> take a serious look at this in the near future? >>>> >>>> Erik wrote: >>>>> What is the mandate period of the transitional board? When will the >>>>> suggested new structure with an elected board start? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard <sam.heard at >>>> oceaninformatics.com> wrote: >>>>> [Sam Heard] I for one am very happy to express a date for elections if >>>>> organisations embrace these arrangements. Clearly if there is no interest >>>>> in >>>>> participating from industry or organisations then we would have to think >>>>> again. I suspect we will then move to election of the Board by Members but >>>>> it is our wish to provide a means of determining the governance for >>>>> openEHR?s key sponsors. The aim is to balance the Members with governance >>>>> from the funders and sponsors. Some may prefer a democratic organisation >>>>> top >>>>> to bottom; we do not think this will achieve the best results. >>>> >>>> So there is no absolute end date set. :-( >>>> >>>> The "if organisations embrace these arrangements" part is worrying, >>>> especially since we already have seen failed attempts at getting >>>> buy-in from "organisations". >>>> >>>> Can't you set an absolute latest date (e.g. at the very latest >>>> December 31, 2012) when the new arrangements will start no matter if >>>> big organisations have made use of the introductory offer of buying a >>>> position in the board? If not, we risk having an interim board >>>> forever, and we really don't need any more delays in the journey >>>> towards community-driven governance. If you get buy-in from the number >>>> of big players you want before that absolute end date then there would >>>> be nothing stopping you from doing the transition earlier than the >>>> "latest date". >>>> >>>> Erik wrote: >>>>> The thoughts behind the third point in the "Principles of licencing" are >>>>> understandable, but as stated over and over again, e.g. at... >>>>> http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal?focusedCommentId=13041696#comment-13041696 >>>>> ...the SA part of CC-BY-SA won't help against copyright and patent abuse. >>>>> Only fighting possible upcoming bad patents in particular and bad patent >>>>> laws in general might save the openEHR community form patent abuse. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard <sam.heard at >>>> oceaninformatics.com> wrote: >>>>> [Sam Heard] If this is true then the SA part of the license has no value. >>>>> If >>>>> this is true then I have not heard this before. >>>> >>>> I am very glad if you might have started to see the lack of value in >>>> SA for archetypes. Using pure CC-BY (for both archetypes AND >>>> specifications) would make the first six points under "Principles of >>>> licensing" unnecessary and reduce confusion. >>>> >>>> At the same time I am very worried about the totally amazing >>>> information blocking filter you must have built in if you have "not >>>> heard" this argument before. Several people have been questioning your >>>> reasoning on this very point for years! >>>> >>>> On the official openEHR-wikipage set up for this particular question >>>> when community feedback was requested... >>>> http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal >>>> ...you have several people (including Tom Beale) in clear text saying >>>> that CC-BY-SA will NOT protect against patent attacks. (Scroll down to >>>> the heading "Discussion summaries regarding CC-BY versus CC-BY-SA for >>>> content models".) >>>> >>>> How on earth could you and the entire board miss that when writing up >>>> the draft for the transition whitepaper and when making earlier >>>> license decisions? >>>> >>>> One thing that however is very efficient in fighting patent trolls is >>>> "prior art". Thus one of the best protections regarding archetypes >>>> etc. is to have as much as possible of development completely public, >>>> indexed and archived by trusted sites (like http://www.archive.org/). >>>> This means always making sure to allow enough search engines and not >>>> requiring login in order to read archetype discussions and thoughts in >>>> development repositories (things like the CKM). The earlier date the >>>> mention of an idea can be traced back to, the more patent claims it >>>> will protect against. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Erik Sundvall >>>> erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733 >>>> >>>> P.s. I agree with Pablo & Diego that we need to talk about >>>> communication between several repositories, not just discuss the >>>> current openEHR-hosted CKM. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> openEHR-technical mailing list >>>> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >>>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-technical mailing list >>> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >> > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical >
