Dear all, I agree with Ian that any change at international level should be market driven. From an experience of someone who works with standardization for years and who already led the adoption of standards in Brazil's extensive market, it is worth remembering that standards must reflect a consensus among the various stakeholders. Not always the final agreement reflects the most purist academic point, on the contrary they reflect a sum of needs and more pragmatic issues. It is the old saying: perfect is enemy of good. >From that experience, I must say there is always has someone challenging the standard adopted, by always, saying that this or that attribute is missing or could be represented differently. I always reply, that if we pursue perfection it wll be a never ending discussion and we will never adopt anyhting. Changes must have a value to aggregate to every user to be done. openEHR is still taking baby steps in several countries and we, the adoption"s supporters,, use precisely the archetype "blood pressure" as a flagship demonstration of green archetypes worldwide, it is iconic . A change to v2 now, in my opinion gives a confusing message from us for those who are starting to adopt openEHR.
IMO is strongly reccomended that Norway adopts BP v2 as the national archetype first(I wonder if it is consensus within that country). Later the community can evaluate their experience and change it with more evidence and support of the international community of users. Regards Jussara Rötzsch MD, MSc Owner, Giant Global Graph ehealth Soluções em Saúde OpenEHR Foundation- Director <http://www.giantglobalgraph.com.br> 2015-10-07 8:26 GMT-03:00 Ian McNicoll <i...@freshehr.com>: > Hi all, > > This is IMO, a very important issue for the openEHR community and many > thanks to Heather for providing such a clear exposition of the issues and > choices, faced by any community building products and tools based on > open-source distribution and governance principles. As such, I do not think > these challenges are unique to openEHR. > > It is particularly important for vendors and implementers, who as well as > trying build great systems are also building an ecosystem, one of whose > strengths and sales-points is the ability to use 'shared components' > out-of-the-box. > > openEHR is well -engineered to support controlled change to new versions > of artefacts and there is no question that we will regularly have to make > such changes, even breaking changes as new clinical safety issues or new > requirements emerge. One can perhaps see this as 'market-driven' change - > suppliers will say - "we need a new data point", or "the V1 archetype is no > longer fit-for-purpose, we accept the need for a V2 and will manage the > upgrade process". > > The example Heather has given around the Blood pressure archetype is a > good example of what we might call 'modeller-driven/best practice change'. > Some perfectly reasonable issues have been detected in the V1 BP archetype, > and 'best modelling practice/ best semantics' would suggest that we create > a V2. However, I doubt if there is any real demand for this from the vendor > community .. very few will be using the Tilt element which contains the > error and the other issue is more about modelling style- what is there at > the moment works ok. > > So, in reality, I suspect there are very few drivers to push implementers > to use V2, and we will end up (for now) with a 'best-practice' V2 and a V1 > that continues to be used by the vast majority of implementations. One can > argue that this is how the system is supposed to work .. put the variations > out there and let the market decide, but new entrants to that market, and > existing vendors working in multiple national markets will find that they > are being asked to develop against both V1 and V2. > > Again, no-one disputes that this will happen for perfectly good reasons > where V2 solves some real problems for implementers but I am anxious that > we do not create unnecessary market confusion, purely to fix some rather > obscure, if real problems. > > Heather quite reasonably asks the question 'Is it the role of the > international modelling team to take such issues into consideration, or > should the CKM efforts be purely driven by quality and technical > correctness'. > > I think it is very important that we get feedback from Industry on this. > Please give us your input. > > Ian > > > > > > > > > > Dr Ian McNicoll > mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 > office +44 (0)1536 414994 > skype: ianmcnicoll > email: i...@freshehr.com > twitter: @ianmcnicoll > > Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org > Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. > Director, HANDIHealth CIC > Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL > > On 2 October 2015 at 12:46, Sebastian Garde < > sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > >> >> From a governance point of view, I believe it is clear that the v2 route >> is the cleanest option here. >> And in a general way I also agree with your concerns, Diego! >> I think that my suggestion of deprecating old and adding the new >> elements, can only make sense if we can model the new elements in a v1 >> archetype in a way that the data paths don't need to change when later >> migrating to a forthcoming v2 archetype. >> >> From an implementers point of view I am not so sure I'd be so happy if I >> need to take the archetype to the next major version just because of this. >> Therefore, I also agree with Heather and share the concerns that creating a >> v2 in this case is a bit over the top. >> Not sure if anybody is even using Tilt or the location from this >> archetype's protocol in the first place? >> >> If you are able to add the new things (or at least the unit change) to >> the v1 archetype *and* start the work on publishing a "clean" v2 >> archetype at the same time, this would allow implementers to upgrade in >> their own time, while being able to enable the use of correct units and >> 'modern' modelling patterns in the existing v1 archetype. >> >> I think it is reasonable to add another unit to an archetype without >> having to up its major version (and provide some guidance that this is the >> 'better' unit to use). >> Changing the modelling pattern for the location and adding this a >> complete alternative may be asking to much from a minor revision of an >> archetype. >> >> Maybe this is also a good exercise for anybody using this archetype on >> how best to upgrade from one major version to the next...but my preference >> I think is to, yes start with a v2 archetype, but also *add *the correct >> unit to the v1 archetype and republish as a minor revision. >> >> Sebastian >> >> >> On 02.10.2015 11:36, Diego Boscá wrote: >> >> Would they be alternatives of the data type or just new elements at the >> same level? I see problems with both: if you create an alternative on data >> types probably you won't be able to add bindings to it, and if made a >> another element then you don't have an easy way of telling what corrects >> (you could even have corrections of corrections of corrections... Which one >> would you link to?). Probably even assertions should be included in order >> to avoid the inclusion of the deprecated and the corrected one in the same >> instance. >> >> IMHO is much easier to just upgrade the version >> El 2/10/2015 11:20, "Sebastian Garde" < >> sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com> escribió: >> >>> Hi Heather, >>> >>> Instead of removing the incorrect UCUM unit and the old modelling >>> patterns completely, would it be possible to mark these bits as >>> 'deprecated' in some [informal] way in the ontology? >>> >>> This way you could make the desired changes and republish as a minor >>> revision of version 1. >>> For a version 2 archetype, the bits marked as deprecated would be >>> removed (this v2 archetype could be provided as a draft now or later). >>> >>> Cheers >>> Sebastian >>> >>> P.S.: Arguably, a more formal way of deprecating bits and pieces in an >>> archetype, will become quite useful in the future. >>> >>> On 02.10.2015 06:11, Heather Leslie wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m seeking community input around a conundrum that has arisen regarding >>> archetype governance or, more specifically, if we should offer a new >>> version of an archetype that included breaking changes/corrections >>> according to the openEHR specifications but which are not critical in terms >>> of clinical safety – a bit of a grey zone, if you like. If clinical safety >>> were implicated, the decision would be easy. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Blood Pressure archetype was published in 2009 and I believe is in >>> fairly wide use in systems at this point. Currently published version >>> here <http://ckm.openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.130>, and which >>> has had only ‘trivial’, non-breaking changes, including addition of >>> translations, etc since publication. >>> >>> >>> >>> Recently the Norwegian community translated the archetype and then >>> undertook a local review of the archetype. They have suggested some >>> modifications to the archetype which include updating some of the data >>> elements around identifying the body location of the BP measurement to be >>> in keeping with more recent archetype patterns that we have been using, >>> plus identified that the representation of degrees of Tilt was not using >>> the UCUM units, plus a few minor additions. >>> >>> >>> >>> The result is that their new candidate archetype (here >>> <http://ckm.openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.2189>) which includes >>> these changes is regarded as a Major revision under our current CKM >>> versioning rules and if republished warrants becoming a version 2. That is >>> all perfectly OK from an academic governance point of view. >>> >>> >>> >>> There is no doubt that the archetype is a more accurate and enhanced >>> iteration but the practical implications of republishing as a v2 are not >>> trivial to implementers. >>> >>> >>> >>> So I seek your advice on whether we should proceed with further content >>> review with the intent of re-publishing as a new v2 archetype: >>> >>> · *Pros* >>> >>> o Archetype data is updated to include correct UCUM units >>> >>> o Archetype data is updated to include more ‘modern’ modelling >>> patterns that are being used increasingly in more recent archetypes >>> >>> o New implementers will be able to use the most up-to-date version of >>> the archetype, rather than using an archetype that has been identified as >>> having flaws. Otherwise new implementers will continue to implement a >>> known, flawed archetype into their new systems >>> >>> o Further content review will expose the archetype to a broader range >>> of clinicians and their input will potentially further enhance, or at least >>> endorse the current, quality. >>> >>> >>> >>> · *Cons* >>> >>> o Further content review will possibly introduce further changes – >>> maybe breaking, maybe not. >>> >>> o Existing implementers will need to decide whether it is worthwhile >>> to update to v2. The alternative is to stay with the v1 published archetype >>> as is and consider updating at some future time. >>> >>> o The update of the UCUM unit and body location pattern does not have >>> major safety implications or significantly impact the modelling quality, >>> yet will have internal implications in existing clinical systems. >>> >>> o Two versions of the archetype will be in circulation, and >>> implementers will need to manage the interoperability issues that will >>> arise. >>> >>> o Norway will likely use the new archetype as their national >>> standard, diverging from the openEHR CKM content, which is not desired by >>> either party. >>> >>> >>> >>> A portion of the diff is attached, which demonstrates the major breaking >>> changes. There are many other changes that only refer to translations and >>> are non-breaking in the rest of the diff >>> >>> >>> >>> Major changes are: >>> >>> · Changing ‘Tilt’ units – ‘°’ to ‘deg’ – at1005 – this is the >>> critical and breaking correction that has triggered considering these >>> additional changes: >>> >>> o Making Measurement Location a choice of coded text and text – at0014 >>> >>> o Removal the redundant ‘Location’ cluster heading >>> >>> >>> >>> This is the first time we have had to update a published archetype and >>> it certainly won’t be the last. If there were breaking changes that needed >>> to be made for clinical safety reasons or similar critical reasons I would >>> have no hesitation in proceeding to v2. If there were non-breaking changes >>> we would manage the progression with additional minor revisions or patches >>> – not a problem. This one has breaking changes but no clinical safety >>> issues, so a bit of a grey zone because of the possible implementation >>> implications. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have no doubt that many implementers are already grappling with these >>> issues if they have implemented draft archetypes, so perhaps you all have >>> established systems and approaches for this. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have had some advice suggesting we should leave the archetype as is, >>> rather than ‘rock the implementation boat’ for little semantic value, yet >>> I’m not sure that it is our role to be paternalistic. My own inclinations >>> are that we should govern the archetypes from a pure point of view, >>> updating and creating new versions if we have to, and allowing CKM to >>> provide the transparency that will support implementers to make informed >>> choices. >>> >>> >>> >>> So: >>> >>> *Option 1*: Do nothing. The current flawed archetype will be the only >>> one available on the openEHR CKM >>> >>> *Option 2*: Promote the new candidate archetype to the public trunk as >>> a potential new iteration – so available for viewing and download, but with >>> no official status, effectively in limbo until a further review round is >>> carried out and it is republished. >>> >>> *Option 3*: Promote the new candidate archetype to the public trunk, >>> run formal content reviews on it and plan to re-publish as v2 >>> >>> >>> >>> Please, your thoughts? >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 <%2B61%20418%20966%20670> skype: heatherleslie >>> twitter: @omowizard >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-clinical mailing >>> listopenEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr. Sebastian Garde* >>> *Dr. sc. hum., Dipl.-Inform. Med, FACHI* >>> Ocean Informatics >>> >>> Skype: gardeseb >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> >>> >>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. >>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-technical mailing list >>> openehr-techni...@lists.openehr.org >>> >>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-implementers mailing >> listopenEHR-implementers@lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org >> >> >> -- >> >> *Dr. Sebastian Garde* >> *Dr. sc. hum., Dipl.-Inform. Med, FACHI* >> Ocean Informatics >> >> Skype: gardeseb >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> >> >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. >> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
