Hi all, As one of the author's of the criticized paper by Blobel et al, I feel some need to react and give you some thoughts:
- OpenEHR after 20 or more years is still largely under construction. I have asked many times to get names and locations of reference sites where I can see a real world archetypes based system in action. No response. - the approach with the archetypes is technology driven: implementation specific, not clinically driven. It lacks the basic conceptual, logical, implementation perspective of ISO 11179. In particular the logical modeling is what Blobel et all discuss. - use and grounding the Modelling in formal ontologies is lacking in any of the Modelling approaches: HL7 templates, HL7 FHIR, OpenEHR archetypes, 13606 archetypes, CEMLS, CIMI, DCM in UML. The articles discussed that with respect to 3 examples. All modelers have a job to do. For justification have a look at semantic health net work. - the GCM model allows a much deeper analysis of domain, modeling and implementation eg through domains on z axis, business bottom up and top down on y axis, and Reference Model ? Open Distributed Processing (RM-ODP) system development standard on x axis. OpenEHR, like many others have not a complete picture. Of course you may critique a paper exposing this lack. But it feels like shooting the messenger(s) instead of listening to the message. Guys, you've got work to do. Vriendelijke groet, Dr. William Goossen Directeur Results 4 Care BV +31654614458 > Op 11 mrt. 2015 om 12:27 heeft openehr-clinical-request at lists.openehr.org > het volgende geschreven: > > Send openEHR-clinical mailing list submissions to > openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > openehr-clinical-request at lists.openehr.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > openehr-clinical-owner at lists.openehr.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of openEHR-clinical digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. How to fix CKM biggest issue (Gustavo Bacelar) > 2. Re: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis (Thomas Beale) > 3. RE: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis (Rong Chen) > 4. Re: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis (Diego Bosc?) > 5. SV: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis (Mikael Nystr?m) > 6. Re: How to fix CKM biggest issue (Sebastian Garde) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:54:12 +0000 > From: Gustavo Bacelar <gbacelar at gmail.com> > To: openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org> > Subject: How to fix CKM biggest issue > Message-ID: > <CACVga3k-hQt8Qhx8tkvazvNgzyqj_C7U3jG6=f3q40UHF_nxrw at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear all, > I would like to suggest some very important changes for governance model of > CKM. As you all know, CKM is a keystone to openEHR, but its actual > governance model is outdated and holds the development and inclusion of new > archetypes. > > As long as I know there are only 2 main editors that can import any type of > archetypes to CKM. I'm an editor too, but I can only import to > Ophthalmology Project and some other Incubators. The inclusion of new > archetypes can not depend on only 2-3 people. It is a huge constraint to > the development of openEHR, we must have more main editors. > > What I propose is to follow a governance model similar to Wikipedia. It > should be possible to anyone to submit archetypes, but these would be in a > sandbox, which already exists: the Incubators. These would stimulate other > participants of CKM to develop new archetypes and to improve them much > faster. When an archetype is sufficiently mature, an editor would include > it to public use. > > Kind regards > -- > Gustavo Bacelar > MD + MBA + MSc Med Informatics > Skype: gustavobacela > ?r > LinkedIn: pt.linkedin.com/in/gbacelar > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150311/9c16382f/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:08:16 +0000 > From: Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org > Subject: Re: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis > Message-ID: <55001410.30503 at oceaninformatics.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > I actually wrote to Jan Talmon about this when I was first aware of it > (30 Oct 2013) and gave him my opinion of the quality of the science in > this paper (it wasn't very positive;-). His view was that I / we / > someone should write a letter to the editor of IJMI in which the errors > / shortcomings are discussed. I did not do this for lack of time, but I > think it would make sense to still do this and/or write a much better > paper on the topic, which could cover actual evidence and science being > done in openEHR projects, Intermountain environment, and UPV projects as > well. > > thoughts? > > - thomas > >> On 01/03/2015 20:38, Diego Bosc? wrote: >> I agree, a response paper seems the most logical approach. >> >> 2015-03-01 21:31 GMT+01:00 Koray Atalag <k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz>: >>> I?m completely disappointed, but not surprised, that this paper was accepted >>> as a scientific paper in the first place with such bold arguments. >>> >>> We have all seen him advocating on openEHR during quite a few EU FP6 project >>> proposals ? I certainly attended a few workshops together. At some point he >>> must have been alienated or something?? At any rate I think it is our >>> responsibility to publish a formal rebuttal and challenge this paper. That?s >>> what science is about, isn?t it? > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:33:35 +0000 > From: Rong Chen <Rong.Chen at cambio.se> > To: For openEHR clinical discussions > <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org> > Subject: RE: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis > Message-ID: > <3DA5EA8C5B1CC94F882C78D81C7D2EA41EA793EF at CSS-MAIL.cambio.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Thomas, > I think it's a great idea! I fully support you on this. > Best regards, > Rong > > Rong Chen, MD, PhD > VP, Head of Medical Informatics Group > CMIO, Director of Health Informatics > +46 8 691 49 81 > ? > Cambio+ Healthcare Systems AB > Stockholm: > Drottninggatan 89. SE-113 60 Stockholm > Vx: +46 8 691 49 00 | Fax: +46 8 691 49 99 > Link?ping: > Universitetsv?gen 14 SE-583 30 Link?ping > Vx: +46 13 20 03 00 | Fax: +46 13 20 03 99 > Epost: info at cambio.se? | Hemsida: www.cambio.se > > -----Original Message----- > From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] > On Behalf Of Thomas Beale > Sent: 11 March 2015 11:08 > To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org > Subject: Re: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis > > > I actually wrote to Jan Talmon about this when I was first aware of it > (30 Oct 2013) and gave him my opinion of the quality of the science in this > paper (it wasn't very positive;-). His view was that I / we / someone should > write a letter to the editor of IJMI in which the errors / shortcomings are > discussed. I did not do this for lack of time, but I think it would make > sense to still do this and/or write a much better paper on the topic, which > could cover actual evidence and science being done in openEHR projects, > Intermountain environment, and UPV projects as well. > > thoughts? > > - thomas > >> On 01/03/2015 20:38, Diego Bosc? wrote: >> I agree, a response paper seems the most logical approach. >> >> 2015-03-01 21:31 GMT+01:00 Koray Atalag <k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz>: >>> I?m completely disappointed, but not surprised, that this paper was >>> accepted as a scientific paper in the first place with such bold arguments. >>> >>> We have all seen him advocating on openEHR during quite a few EU FP6 >>> project proposals ? I certainly attended a few workshops together. At >>> some point he must have been alienated or something?? At any rate I >>> think it is our responsibility to publish a formal rebuttal and >>> challenge this paper. That?s what science is about, isn?t it? > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:35:58 +0100 > From: Diego Bosc? <yampeku at gmail.com> > To: For openEHR clinical discussions > <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org> > Subject: Re: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis > Message-ID: > <CAFx8UwDX2m48DSsuxOYprPx96zGvHxFWq40Z1B4y6DhkODRYfQ at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Count us in ;) > > 2015-03-11 11:08 GMT+01:00 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at > oceaninformatics.com>: >> >> I actually wrote to Jan Talmon about this when I was first aware of it (30 >> Oct 2013) and gave him my opinion of the quality of the science in this >> paper (it wasn't very positive;-). His view was that I / we / someone should >> write a letter to the editor of IJMI in which the errors / shortcomings are >> discussed. I did not do this for lack of time, but I think it would make >> sense to still do this and/or write a much better paper on the topic, which >> could cover actual evidence and science being done in openEHR projects, >> Intermountain environment, and UPV projects as well. >> >> thoughts? >> >> - thomas >> >>> On 01/03/2015 20:38, Diego Bosc? wrote: >>> >>> I agree, a response paper seems the most logical approach. >>> >>> 2015-03-01 21:31 GMT+01:00 Koray Atalag <k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz>: >>>> >>>> I?m completely disappointed, but not surprised, that this paper was >>>> accepted >>>> as a scientific paper in the first place with such bold arguments. >>>> >>>> We have all seen him advocating on openEHR during quite a few EU FP6 >>>> project >>>> proposals ? I certainly attended a few workshops together. At some point >>>> he >>>> must have been alienated or something?? At any rate I think it is our >>>> responsibility to publish a formal rebuttal and challenge this paper. >>>> That?s >>>> what science is about, isn?t it? >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-clinical mailing list >> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:55:18 +0000 > From: Mikael Nystr?m <mikael.nystrom at liu.se> > To: For openEHR clinical discussions > <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org> > Subject: SV: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis > Message-ID: > <6091679361C5CD42AC63CBC47C4550C522DAE33A at MB1-2010.ad.liu.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I might also be interested. > > Regards > Mikael > > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Fr?n: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] > F?r Diego Bosc? > Skickat: den 11 mars 2015 11:36 > Till: For openEHR clinical discussions > ?mne: Re: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis > > Count us in ;) > > 2015-03-11 11:08 GMT+01:00 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at > oceaninformatics.com>: >> >> I actually wrote to Jan Talmon about this when I was first aware of it >> (30 Oct 2013) and gave him my opinion of the quality of the science in >> this paper (it wasn't very positive;-). His view was that I / we / >> someone should write a letter to the editor of IJMI in which the >> errors / shortcomings are discussed. I did not do this for lack of >> time, but I think it would make sense to still do this and/or write a >> much better paper on the topic, which could cover actual evidence and >> science being done in openEHR projects, Intermountain environment, and UPV >> projects as well. >> >> thoughts? >> >> - thomas >> >>> On 01/03/2015 20:38, Diego Bosc? wrote: >>> >>> I agree, a response paper seems the most logical approach. >>> >>> 2015-03-01 21:31 GMT+01:00 Koray Atalag <k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz>: >>>> >>>> I?m completely disappointed, but not surprised, that this paper was >>>> accepted as a scientific paper in the first place with such bold >>>> arguments. >>>> >>>> We have all seen him advocating on openEHR during quite a few EU FP6 >>>> project proposals ? I certainly attended a few workshops together. >>>> At some point he must have been alienated or something?? At any rate >>>> I think it is our responsibility to publish a formal rebuttal and >>>> challenge this paper. >>>> That?s >>>> what science is about, isn?t it? >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-clinical mailing list >> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.opene >> hr.org > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:27:25 +0100 > From: Sebastian Garde <sebastian.garde at oceaninformatics.com> > To: For openEHR clinical discussions > <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org> > Subject: Re: How to fix CKM biggest issue > Message-ID: <5500269D.7040708 at oceaninformatics.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > Hi Gustavo, > > What we will have soon with the next release of CKM is the ability for > any user to propose new archetypes. > We call them Archetype Proposals - this is essentially the Sandbox you > are suggesting, but it is not yet an incubator - more like an Inbox. > > Archetype Proposals will then be assigned to appropriate projects or > incubators by Clinical Knowledge Admins (CKAs). > Although CKAs are indeed a small number of people, this should not be a > bottle-neck because this is a small task only (akin to sorting through > the inbox) > > From there on, there can be many editors for the separate > projects/incubators in addition who would oversee the further > development/review and publishing of the proposed archetypes. > > If you want to check it out, you can go to our Test CKM at > http://ckm-test.oceaninformatics.com > Create an account if you don't have one and go to Archetypes/Propose New > Archetype to submit a new archetype. > (Just note that this is a test/development server and may be unstable, > unavailable, and any data on it may be changed or deleted at any time.) > > Having said that, as you say, I think more editors to share the burden > in the individual projects would be great, of course. > > Regards > Sebastian > >> On 11.03.2015 10:54, Gustavo Bacelar wrote: >> Dear all, >> I would like to suggest some very important changes for governance >> model of CKM. As you all know, CKM is a keystone to openEHR, but its >> actual governance model is outdated and holds the development and >> inclusion of new archetypes. >> >> As long as I know there are only 2 main editors that can import any >> type of archetypes to CKM. I'm an editor too, but I can only import to >> Ophthalmology Project and some other Incubators. The inclusion of new >> archetypes can not depend on only 2-3 people. It is a huge constraint >> to the development of openEHR, we must have more main editors. >> >> What I propose is to follow a governance model similar to Wikipedia. >> It should be possible to anyone to submit archetypes, but these would >> be in a sandbox, which already exists: the Incubators. These would >> stimulate other participants of CKM to develop new archetypes and to >> improve them much faster. When an archetype is sufficiently mature, an >> editor would include it to public use. >> >> Kind regards >> -- >> Gustavo Bacelar >> MD + MBA + MSc Med Informatics >> Skype: gustavobacela >> ?r >> LinkedIn: pt.linkedin.com/in/gbacelar <http://pt.linkedin.com/in/gbacelar> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-clinical mailing list >> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > -- > *Dr. Sebastian Garde* > /Dr. sc. hum., Dipl.-Inform. Med, FACHI/ > Ocean Informatics > > Skype: gardeseb > > > --- > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > http://www.avast.com > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150311/3afe0c6a/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > ------------------------------ > > End of openEHR-clinical Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4 > *********************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150311/78dc8a3b/attachment-0001.html>
