It is actually relevant to have this information in the ?Use? as it is a reasonable place to look to see constraints on use and how it should be implemented in systems.
No reason why it can?t be in a dedicated/purpose-built place as well. Heather From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Grahame Grieve Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2014 8:07 PM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Cc: Openehr-Technical Subject: Re: Archetypes - new meta-data elements for 3rd party copyrights? my advice from LOINC/regenstrief is that it does apply Grahame On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com<mailto:thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>> wrote: Something that has become clear in CIMI, and will affect openEHR, 13606 and most likely any archetype developer is that acknowledgements of 3rd party copyrights and trademarks need to be made. The most obvious common one is likely to be for SNOMED CT codes in archetype bindings (Stan Huff at Intermountain is still working on whether such acknowledgements are needed for LOINC codes). However, it could be for anything, e.g. rights to use a scale like Barthel or Waterlow. At the moment there is no dedicated place in the model for this particular meta-data. It could just go in 'other_details' but I suspect that we need to be more precise than that. Consider for example, the openEHR Barthel scale archetype - it currently carries this text in the 'Use' section: Note: The Maryland State Medical Society holds the copyright for the Barthel Index. It may be used freely for non-commercial purposes with the following citation: Mahoney FI, Barthel D. ?Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index.? Maryland State Med Journal 1965;14:56-61. Used with permission. Permission is required to modify the Barthel Index or to use it for commercial purposes. This seems less than optimal, and is certainly not going to be reliably tool-separable from the main 'Use' content, since the word 'Note:' and the placement of this text are purely local choices. There is another issue here. The acknowledgement text actually included in the archetype needs to be minimal, and as far as legally possible not contain volatile elements that can change. Therefore, I think the general approach needs to be as is typically done with open source licences: not including the whole text, but including a reliable URL to the licence text either from the issuer (e.g. Creative Commons CC-BY page) or an agreement between the publisher and the licensor (e.g. between IHTSDO and CIMI for the use of SNOMED CT, and details of that use). I have updated the meta-data page on the wiki <http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/ADL/Knowledge+Artefact+Meta-data> to indicate what I think is the requirement - see end of the main table. I am increasingly of the feeling that we need to act on this soon. - thomas _______________________________________________ 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 -- ----- http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame at healthintersections.com.au<mailto:grahame at healthintersections.com.au> / +61 411 867 065 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141113/13720d3f/attachment-0001.html>
