Hi Mikael,
Ian McNicoll and I have had a number of discussions in recent months with IHTSDO to discuss licensing arrangements around SNOMED inclusion in archetypes and CKM. This is ongoing and slightly tricky as the licenses need to be with end-users of archetypes or CKMs, not just the openEHR Foundation itself. I agree that it would be great to see some more interaction between the two organisations at the data modelling level, and you can see from Thomas' email that there have been attempts over the years, but little traction. I was pleased to see that IHTSDO has developed an expert Modelling Advisory Group a few months ago, so much so that I nominated for a position thinking that this would be an opportunity to further the inter-organisational collaboration, only to be unsuccessful. I wonder if anyone else from openEHR nominated and was successful. I would definitely like to see more collaboration - the end result could be a powerful disruption for the 'little data'. It would also be good to hear that people inside IHTSDO are agitating for more engagement with openEHR. Regards Heather Dr Heather Leslie MBBS FRACGP FACHI Consulting Lead, Ocean Informatics<http://www.oceaninformatics.com/> Clinical Programme Lead, openEHR Foundation<http://www.openehr.org/> p: +61 418 966 670 skype: heatherleslie twitter: @omowizard > -----Original Message----- > From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] On > Behalf Of Thomas Beale > Sent: Monday, 28 September 2015 2:56 AM > To: openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org > Subject: Re: openEHR and IHTSDO (SNOMED CT) > > On 27/09/2015 17:08, Mikael Nyström wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > I found the responsible person at IHTSDO for the collaboration with openEHR > Foundation. According to her, there are active discussions to be able to soon > sign a collaborative agreement between IHTSDO and openEHR and then > continue to work with how SNOMED CT and openEHR artefacts practically can > be used together. > > > > IHTSDO also states over and over again that SNOMED CT needs to be > implemented together with good information models to reach its full potential > and IHTSDO hosted (at least) the CIMI autumn meeting in Amsterdam last > year. I therefore don't understand your very negative attitude towards IHTSDO > collaboration Tom. > > yes it does keep saying such things doesn't it? However, it needs to actively > work _with_ other organisations on this. Terminology is not a standalone > proposition... > > Note that openEHR has never done anything other than cooperate and propose > various kinds of formal relationship with IHTSDO - we've spent a lot of time > on > that. Limited results so far... > > - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
_______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
