Hi Diego, Mostly agree but I think there is a still a strong case for a purely international 'centrally-resourced' activity which is aligned to vendor / system builder need, rather than national activities which for now tend to have a more limited scope and focus.
I don't think we can rely on national activities to drive this, though agree that we need to make it easier for them to share into the international space. I wholly agree that it would be good to start looking at some APIs that would allow easier cross-communicaton between different repository solutions. Some of the work done on versioning/namespacing was definitely done with that in mind. I'm sure the Board would welcome any concrete proposals in that are, if you had something worked up already. I am conscious that the HL7 template community is also working in this area. It would be nice to se some kind of simple Restful API emerge. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: ian at freshehr.com twitter: @ianmcnicoll Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Director, openEHR Foundation Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On 13 March 2015 at 11:44, Diego Bosc? <yampeku at gmail.com> wrote: > I really think that the solution to all these detected issues is a > distributed approach: Each national/specific domain archetype repository is > likely to have paid staff to develop their archetype set. Each national > repository should have their own editors, which should ease the editorial > tasks on international CKM. > > I'm aware that CKM currently supports or is planing to support completely > this approach, but we probably should develop/agree on an open API which > repositories could (should) then use. > > 2015-03-13 6:10 GMT+01:00 Heather Leslie < > heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com>: > >> Thanks Evelyn, >> >> >> >> Even I forget the real roots? We should document it so we don?t lose the >> provenance. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Heather >> >> >> >> *From:* openEHR-clinical [mailto: >> openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] *On Behalf Of *Evelyn Hovenga >> *Sent:* Friday, 13 March 2015 2:53 PM >> >> *To:* 'For openEHR clinical discussions' >> *Subject:* RE: How to fix CKM biggest issue >> >> >> >> Thanks you for this historical overview Heather. I?d like to add that >> the original CKM was developed, maintained and funded by Central Queensland >> University. It was taken over by Ocean Informatics when that University >> decided to shut down its entire HI Research Centre at the end of 2007. >> >> >> >> Evelyn >> >> [image: EHE logo tree] >> >> >> >> Dr Evelyn J.S.Hovenga, FACS >> >> CEO & Director >> >> * eHealth Education Pty Ltd, RTO 32279* >> >> www.ehe.edu.au >> e.hovenga at ehe.edu.au >> Mob. 0408309839 >> >> >> >> *From:* openEHR-clinical [ >> mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org >> <openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org>] *On Behalf Of *Heather >> Leslie >> *Sent:* Friday, 13 March 2015 1:12 PM >> *To:* For openEHR clinical discussions >> *Subject:* RE: How to fix CKM biggest issue >> >> >> >> Hi Gustavo and the openEHR community, >> >> >> >> I?m really sad and disappointed if Gustavo?s opinion is mirrored >> elsewhere in the openEHR community. >> >> >> >> I?m sure it reflects a frustration with the slow process over past years. >> But anyone who has bothered to ask me about how I feel about the progress >> will hear that I am much more frustrated than any of you. >> >> >> >> We, as the openEHR community really need to do a bit of soul searching. >> From my point of view we?ve all been very passive about this modelling >> work, all waiting for someone else to do it or take responsibility for it. >> >> >> >> The reality is that when Ocean first launched the openEHR CKM, the work >> fell to Ocean people. Either Ocean funded it OR Ian and I did the editorial >> work in our own time? no other option, and has been the way for years. >> Truth is, after a couple of years and getting a couple of hundred >> archetypes publicly available on CKM, I was really burned out and unwell. >> No-one seemed to notice the effort, to be honest. Certainly no-one seemed >> to appreciate it. I stopped doing the work in my own time and reclaimed my >> evenings and weekends. I hoped that there would be a cry of outrage from >> the community ? ?Why has the CKM work stopped?? But no one noticed; no one >> said anything, for at least 18 months, possibly more. >> >> >> >> This passivity has astounded me. >> >> >> >> Over 2 years ago, there was a bit of an epiphany ? a special strategic >> board meeting was held in London where others were invited, including >> myself. The attendees all agreed that one of the highest priorities was to >> get archetypes published. I was able to present calculations on how much it >> would cost to fund some editorial work to get this happening. Nothing >> happened. >> >> >> >> Finally, in the second half of last year, the Industry Group has been >> able to offer the first funded work to Ian and myself to try to fast track >> some archetypes through to publication. This is the first funding that has >> been raised in the openEHR community for this critical modelling work ever. >> The scope is clearly limited to publishing 69 archetypes. Unfortunately >> there was no extra allocated for the extra time required to train or mentor >> others to do the work. >> >> >> >> The Industry Sprint hasn?t been as fast or as focussed as either Ian or I >> would like as we both have ?day jobs? that require our attention as well. >> However you will have seen a flurry of activity in the past couple of weeks >> ? 9 archetypes have been refined and sent out for review in the past 10 >> days. I really appreciate that the Industry Group has collaborated and >> committed to this support. And of course it is really exciting that this is >> one of the first times we will see potential competitive vendors working >> together to get clinical content standardised ? breaking down the siloes! >> >> >> >> So the situation IS changing? >> >> >> >> And in addition, we need to recognise what we do have ? an amazing set of >> building blocks and an approach to clinician engagement that has not been >> emulated in any other domain or standards work. This current openEHR >> approach is world-leading and with fairly modest resources we can do a lot >> more that needs to be done. >> >> >> >> The community has a fantastic problem. As of today we have 1300 users >> from 85 countries registered on the openEHR CKM. What a spectacular >> resource we have at our finger tips; 381 people have specifically >> volunteered to review and 199 to translate archetypes ? all through word of >> mouth, no advertising. We have a purpose-built tool has been developed and >> provided free of charge to the community for over 7 years in order to >> manage the library, collaboration and governance of information models use >> that. We have only two trained Editors and a handful of others with limited >> experience and zero resources committed to managing it. So far it has been >> run on the ?smell of an oily rag? ? not sure how that will translate >> outside of Australia ? and this needs to change to become sustainable. >> >> >> >> From a tooling point of view, CKM has been purpose-designed and gradually >> enhanced to do all the things that Gustavo dreams of ? projects and >> incubators (acting as sandpits for raw archetype development); multiple >> roles for reviewers, editors, CKAs have all been there for at least a year; >> archetypes can be proposed in the next release of CKM. Community >> participation is the focus, and the capability is not currently being >> leveraged as it could, and the healthy tension between ?bottom-up? and ?top >> down? can be managed. But the real problem is that there are not enough >> people trained as Editors, and no one resourced to manage/govern the work. >> >> >> >> Bringing on new Editors is absolutely welcome ? both Ian and I are very >> keen to share the Editorial and Clinical Knowledge Administrator load more >> broadly, because otherwise the CKM work is not sustainable. All this talk >> of the community being unable to participate is not actually fair or >> reasonable ? when I?ve put out a call for Editors we?ve had a few people >> volunteer, true. To be honest though, most of those that I have discussed >> it with in more detail have then declined when I?ve explained the amount of >> commitment or they?ve simply participated in an editorial meeting. For >> those remaining, they need training and then ongoing mentoring. But who is >> to do this? How is this to be resourced? It absolutely does need to be >> resourced appropriately. >> >> >> >> By contrast, I have been working under contract with the Norwegian CKM >> team recently ? they have been resourced to develop archetypes and develop >> processes for governance and in many aspects after only one year of >> activity they are now more advanced than the openEHR community. We are >> working closely with the Norwegian CKM team to ensure that we can develop >> processes for collaboration between CKMs. Silje Bakke from the Norwegian >> CKM agreed last week to co-edit the Problem/Diagnosis archetype with me and >> that archetype was sent out for review last night. other archetypes have >> had guest editors involved as well, under Ian and my mentorship. >> >> >> >> Key learning: in order for the openEHR work to accelerate, there needs to >> be modest financial resources committed to the archetype standardisation >> work, beyond the very limited scope of the sprint, and the resources need >> to be dedicated, not fitting it in between other work committments. >> >> >> >> As an aside, personally, I?m sick and tired of personally being >> considered a ?blocker?. If only you can imagine how keen I am to upskill >> others and share this onerous responsibility with others; of course at the >> same time this will ensure that this approach will be sustainable into the >> future, and all my work, passion and vision will have been worth it. If I >> keep ?control?, as some choose to view it, then I can be sure that all this >> effort will have been in vain. >> >> >> >> And I?m thoroughly sick of Ocean involvement being regarded as ?the >> enemy?. I?m not going to address accusations of ?conflict of interest? in >> this forum ? the assumption of huge commercial advantage never gets >> balanced by the huge cost of volunteering leadership. Perhaps one day one >> of us will write our memoirs? J >> >> >> >> Back to the main point again - the community should be rightly feeling >> indignant about a lot of things, but rather than complaining or ?thinking >> about it? we need to be actively doing something about it. We have a new >> openEHR Management Board ? I hope they will do something about this? But, >> also, if you are one of the indignant what are YOU personally going to do >> about it? >> >> >> >> I?ve done what I can with essentially zero resources, now what do you >> propose?? >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Heather >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* openEHR-clinical [ >> mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org >> <openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org>] *On Behalf Of *Gustavo >> Bacelar >> *Sent:* Friday, 13 March 2015 3:51 AM >> *To:* For openEHR clinical discussions >> *Subject:* Re: How to fix CKM biggest issue >> >> >> >> Hi Ian, Sebastian and everyone, >> >> on early 2009 Microsoft discontinued its encyclopedia, Encarta. MS >> Encarta had a limited selection of *professionally edited content*, but >> it was defeated by an initiative of *non-professional edited content*: >> Wikipedia. >> By that time, Wikipedia offered *2.7 million articles* in English, >> Encarta had *42,000 entries*. >> >> >> >> Encarta did try to adapt, inviting users to submit suggestions for >> changes to articles, but those suggestions *first had to be checked by a >> member of the Encarta staff*. And Encarta *did not allow users to submit >> new entries*. >> >> >> >> My point is: openEHR has a *huge potential*, but it is still >> too bureaucratic. It must be free to follow its path. >> >> >> >> Someone can say: "but the quality of wikipedia is questionable, the >> Editors are not professionals!". In 2005, Nature famously reported >> <http://www.jimgiles.net/pdfs/InternetEncyclopaedias.pdf> that Wikipedia >> articles on scientific topics contained just four errors per article on >> average, compared to three errors per article in the online edition of >> Encyclopaedia Britannica. >> >> >> >> ?I've been spreading the word about openEHR through courses ( >> http://goo.gl/KvNCvb) and consulting and I can see more and more people >> aware of it, but the barriers are not moving. I've tested the beta version >> of CKM, thanks Sebastian! It seems to be a very important upgrade, >> including the CKA role. >> >> >> >> I understand that the focus of the Editorial group is to get green ticks, >> but if there were more Editors would be more green ticks as well. By >> mid-2012 there was a Call for CKM Editors. There were at least three people >> interested: Domingo Liotta, ?Pablo Corradini and I. Nothing happened since >> then. >> >> >> >> When it comes to using CKM to local projects, I really think it would be >> much better for the community. It a local project would like to develop new >> archetypes, it would be better to do it within an international context >> instead of developing them locally. >> >> >> >> It is important to separate the interests of openEHR Foundation from >> Ocean's, at his time there in conflict. Ocean wants to sell their products, >> I don't blame it, but the international CKM needs to be a central hub for >> archetype development. It doesn't matter if its for commercial projects or >> not as long as the content: >> >> - Is of interest and not repeated (e.g. a local version of an >> existing archetype) >> - Is not a specific admin data for particular use >> - Is available in CKM for community. >> >> Many of the existing archetypes in CKM were created to fulfill >> commercial use, so it should be used as a source of resources. I will use >> the words on openEHR website and openEHR Wiki: >> >> >> >> "The openEHR CKM has gathered an active Web 2.0 community (...) for >> *sharing* health information between individuals, clinicians and >> *organisations*; between applications, and across *regional* and >> *national* *borders*." >> >> >> >> ?A moral liberal approach would put more load on the Editors, but only if >> we don't increase the Editorial team. It is better to have many useful >> incubated archetypes ?than not having then in CKM. If these archetypes are >> so important, we will be able to see and improve them as soon as possible. >> Let's think about Encarta. >> >> >> >> Best regards! >> >> -- >> >> Gustavo Bacelar >> >> MD + MBA + MSc Med Informatics >> >> Skype: gustavobacela >> >> ?r >> >> LinkedIn: 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > 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/20150313/0f4a2f64/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2251 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150313/0f4a2f64/attachment-0001.jpg>
