Hi David, You mention a big issue: we want to build local archetype and template repositories but we don't have the tools to do it in a coordinated way with the openEHR CKM.
I think it would be great to have an open & free CKM to start with, and a common generic API to connect our local CKMs to regional CKMs and regional CKMs to the global CKM in a controlled way (in this scenario the versioning of artefacts is a big issue and I think it is not solved at the tool level yet). AFAIK the to install the global CKM we have to buy some licenses. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos > Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 17:47:09 +0100 > From: rmhidxi at live.ucl.ac.uk > To: openehr-clinical at openehr.org; Martin.Severs at port.ac.uk > Subject: Re: openEHR Transition Announcement (about regional/national openehr > organizations) > > Just to say, I think it would be great to support the excellent efforts > represented in this discussion, to work towards locally governed > repositories of archetypes/templates, evolving synergistically in the > sort of way being outlined. There is an important parallel with > requirements for governance of terminology. > > I tried very hard to align openEHR within the IHTSDO governance > framework for combining local and global initiative for this sort of > entity, but failed in this because the politics was too hard, as we > reported at the time. IHTSDO seemed, and to me still seems to have the > greatest chance of achieving useful progress towards effective standards > and governance for clinical content, and openEHR should stay as close as > possible to them in this, I believe. There are many clinical and > professional issues still to be explored and resolved as to how > terminology and archetypes should best coexist within such a framework. > There are also licensing issues and realistically the licensing of > archetypes for use in patient care at different levels will have to be > acceptable to those groups responsible for ethico-legal standards that > regulate the clinical professions, and, more immediately, for control of > the licensing of international terminologies. Thus archetype/template > licensing was always bound to be a very thorny and politicised issue for > openEHR and, as a board charged with protecting the openEHR IP for the > ultimate good of the healthcare community, we had to hear arguments from > both within and outside the Foundation in deciding how we should hold > the position. In truth, no one really knows how this issue will play out > and we have to remain flexible in our policy, as we have said. I have > been involved in working groups at a national level on reform of > copyright law, where the kind of argument that is put forward within > openEHR lists is advocated for publication more widely, with similar > push back from interests dependent on controlling completely legitimate > special interests. For what it's worth, I personally am in favour of > society moving towards minimally restrictive licensing of knowledge > artefacts, such as archetypes and terminologies, consistent with good > order. I recognise that the many different perspectives in play about > the underlying issues mean there will be fierce debate and honest > disagreement about what that means and how it can be achieved. 'Twas > ever thus! > > One of the huge difficulties I have observed over the past few years or > so has been the ever growing number of ab initio and, in terms of > outcome, mutually destructive, efforts to define and create standardised > clinical content repositories - from hospital provider and clinical > specialty to national, company product, regional and international > levels. This is happening in many domains beyond healthcare, of course. > There is a need for much more experiment in evolving good practice but > there will never, I feel, be complete unification of such entities. Even > if by some gargantuan effort, something is established globally, it > would tend to fragment at more local levels, much as language itself has > an organic existence between the universal and the local forms. Not > easy to accommodate this basic truth when building and seeking to meet > the evolving requirements of what are essentially very complex > socio-technical entities like standard repositories of clinical content! > What is needed, in my mind, is effective and accessible tooling to > support shared discipline and methodological approach to these > challenges, such that there can be improved, but never perfect or > enduring, interoperability between domains. That's where openEHR has > been trying to help things move forward. > > One final point, here. The marrying of global and local data in computer > systems is being highlighted all over the place, well beyond the > confines of health care records, although it's probably true that the > health record carries one of the most complex set of requirements in > this regard. I have seen it called the problem of 'hyper' but have no > idea why that term is used. I suspect there may be useful research to be > done in looking across 'hyper' requirements in a variety of different > domains where content repositories are being built. Maybe one of the > university groups active in openEHR is taking or might take an interest > in this topic. > > David I > > > On 07/09/2011 09:24, Ian McNicoll wrote: > Thanks Erik, > > These feel like very sound proposals, in particular the focus on > bottom-up local development. > > Pablo, Shinji - would Erik's suggestions be the kind of support that > you would hope to have? > > Ian > > 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 7 September 2011 08:31, Erik Sundvall<erik.sundvall at liu.se> wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 08:38, Ian McNicoll > > <Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > >> So, my question back, is > >> "What sort of support would you like to see, given that significant > >> central resourcing is not likely in the short term?" > > [...] > >> Would it be sufficient for the Foundation to give 'official status' to > >> regional affiliates e.g. openEHR Japan, or are there other practical > >> suggestions as to how best to support regional affiliates? > > I would guess that an 'official status' recognition and thus links in > > online (and some offline) information resources would be a major > > thing, more imoportant than funding, especially if this also allowed > > the regional organisation to arrange "official" openEHR > > gatherings/conferences etc. It would be reasonable if the local > > organisation could keep money left over from such (possibly partly > > commercially sponsored) gatherings/conferences. > > > > Of course it would be reasonable if the foundation had some > > requirements on official local organisations, like having: > > - open membership > > - statutes matching regional democratic traditions and the openEHR > > goals (internal governance rules or whatever the swedish word > > "stadgar" should be translated to) > > - proper accounting and audit > > - a duty to have a dialogue with the central openEHR foundation > > regarding plans involving using the openEHR tradmark for events etc > > - ...probably more... > > > > For local organisations I think bottom up comunity driven governance > > with elected boards etc is the only way to go, not top-down. > > > > Best regards, > > Erik Sundvall > > erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > openEHR-clinical mailing list > > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110907/21e0315e/attachment.html>
