Hi Erik, Thanks for your comments.
The aim of the international CKM is to evolve towards an international resource that contains a cohesive pool of published archetypes, and facilitate any/all collaboration towards that. We need to aim for quality models and protect that carefully. The incubators have been designed to facilitate collaboration in an ungoverned and not-so-public, or private, space that can feed into that cohesive pool. To try to include an educational component in the international CKM where students could make mistakes, create conflict, identify good vs bad modelling, and learn principles/consequences of knowledge governance should be an entirely different thing. At the moment teaching archetype development and certainly knowledge governance is largely an academic exercise, but I think if we could establish a learning instance in a subdomain of a fully functional CKM for modest license fees specifically for this purpose, then this is invaluable. Full functionality of CKM was originally only able to be managed at the full CKM domain instance level ie each ?owner? would need their own CKM instance, which is prohibitive and will result in too many CKMs. Recently we reworked the CKM design extensively to allow this functionality to be managed at Subdomain level as well, allowing for the possibility of shared instances to increase access by interested groups. In a purely teaching-based CKM, with multiple ?co-owned? subdomains, it won?t matter if it results in conflicting or overlapping archetypes and a generally incoherent pool of models. It will allow full experimentation of every bit of CKM functionality and then lecturers can ?blow away? all of the experiments at the end of each course/semester and potentially start afresh ? whatever the subdomain user needs. It will be much more flexible and provide the closest thing to their own fully functional CKM but not cause conflict, confuse or compromise the international openEHR CKM. And of course if universities then want to contribute to the international openEHR CKM, Incubators are the ideal solution while they refine their models, and then they can offer them formally into the governed space. Our experience to date is that not everyone wants to use the single international CKM, even though that would potentially accelerate interoperability. Some national programs, not unreasonably, want to control and review every asset that they will use within their national specifications and standards ? this may change over time. Others want CKMs translated into their own language. We will have to live with the fact that there will be some fragmentation of modelling ? it is just human nature ? but there is a very real possibility that this kind of work will become increasingly centralised if we can keep these discussions between groups happening and take what steps we can reasonably do to federate the CKMS to maximise sharing where is it possible and acceptable. As the benefits of interoperability using common, shared models are realised the desire for controlling locally will no doubt diminish. Further comments inline. Regards Heather From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Erik Sundvall Sent: Friday, 11 July 2014 5:32 PM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Subject: Re: Potential interest in establishment of an academic CKM instance? Hi! Are the incubators (or projects?) in the international openEHR CKM "isolated" enough to be used for educational purposes? [HVL:] The availability of Incubators in the openEHR CKM is always possible. They have been designed to be a non-governed collaboration space that allows archetypes and templates to be uploaded and shared amongst a selected group privately, or open and public, depending on the ?owner? of the Incubator. The Incubator is effectively a shared folder or collection of models with basic team management and archetype/template upload/update. Incubators are a simpler version of the Project and while it is designed for collaboration, it is not set up for full functionality such as reviews etc. Are they excluded by default in general CKM searches? [HVL:] Yes, although the Search allows specific searching in the public Incubators In that case an academic institution (or academic course) could perhaps use an incubator in the openEHR CKM clearly marked as experimental/educational. After a course it might sometimes be desirable to clear (or archive) the incubator in order to have a clean start for next iteration of a course. [HVL:] Certainly, but an Incubator is definitely not a mini-CKM. It is purely designed to be a collaborative space for a few people to remotely work on raw or draft models together. The notion is exactly that models created here in an ungoverned space can be promoted into the governed space when they are mature enough and can be aligned within the (increasingly) cohesive pool of existing archetypes. It allows experimentation around the archetype/template development only. A good thing with using the international openEHR CKM is that the course participants get used to working in the shared CKM and will register accounts that they can use for "real" shared international archetyping after the course. (If the product can handle a large user base.) It might also make educational efforts more visible. [HVL:] Totally agree. That is the reason why we have the Incubators. Students/Consumers are welcome to participate at any time in governed CKM as well. Two big risks with archetyping are: - Fragmented work not contributed back to international shared resources - Not having enough skilled clinical modelers working in the international arena Perhaps both these risks would be somewhat better addressed by learning archetyping in the international openEHR CKM rather than in separate instances? [HVL:] Totally agree with your points. Disagree with your solution, hence the education subdomain proposal. Regards Heather Best regards, Erik Sundvall Ph.D. Medical Informatics. Information Architect. Tel: +46-72-524 54 55 (or 010-1036252 in Sweden) Li?: erik.sundvall at lio.se<mailto:erik.sundvall at lio.se> http://www.lio.se/itc/ & http://www.lio.se/testbadd LiU: erik.sundvall at liu.se<mailto:erik.sundvall at liu.se> http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Heather Leslie <heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com<mailto:heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com>> wrote: Hi everyone, I cautiously send this email as I?m aware that it can be perceived to border on the line between commercial and community, so request if anyone is interested in following through with my idea to email me privately and not use the list any further. I?ve been approached by someone requesting an academic CKM instance that could be used for university teaching purposes. So I am curious to see if there was broader interest in establishing a shared academic CKM for use by universities - for academic, non-commercial purposes only. I?m proposing a solution that would operate a little along the lines of the UK CKM, where there are a number of academic entities sharing the same CKM domain instance, but each with their own autonomous subdomains. This could be useful to kickstart some collaborative academic activity between universities in clinical knowledge management. There are pros and cons for this arrangement, which I?ve tried to outline below: Pros: ? All functionality of the standard CKM will be fully available (ie what you currently see on the openEHR CKM) ? the library, collaborative portal and governance/distribution capability will be fully enabled, including projects/incubators and running archetype/template reviews. ? You would have autonomy within your subdomain (ie effectively a folder or subset of the whole CKM instance) and all of the assets within it. ? The price per university would be minimised as the costs in running, maintaining and hosting the CKM instance would be shared by all. ? As more universities came on board, potentially the cost of the subdomain based on the shared running costs would be minimised, and the license price would mostly be based on the number of assets in the subdomain ie starting with a minimum of 50, and above that it is based on honest usage. Cons: ? If we had multiple universities participating in a single CKM instance who are not coordinating their activity, then I would anticipate that the CKM could become quite a mixed and confused set of models ? acceptable perhaps for academic purposes, but not a good basis for implementations, except at subdomain level. ? No choice about others who would share your CKM instance. ? No control over what activity occurred in other subdomains eg others may upload other archetypes that were similar or potentially conflicting. This is being managed to some degree in the UK instance by the presence of Ian McNicoll, but may not be possible if a widely varied group of academic institutions participate. Coordination between the other subdomain users would be up to all parties voluntarily deciding to work together. I would propose an initial CKM to be in English, although if there was enough interest from a single language group, we could potentially arrange for a number of translated CKMs as well. Please contact me on heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com<mailto:heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com> if you have any questions or wish to express interest. I am also planning to attend MIE 2014 in Istanbul next month if anyone wants to discuss this further. Regards Heather Dr Heather Leslie MBBS FRACGP FACHI Director/Consulting Lead Ocean Informatics<http://www.oceaninformatics.com/> Phone - +61 418 966 670<tel:%2B61%20418%20966%20670> Skype - heatherleslie Twitter - @omowizard _______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140712/994d6299/attachment-0001.html>
