David More wrote: > See short comments below. > On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 20:17:31 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: >>Thinking about this a bit more, it occurs to me that simply having >>archetype definitions mirrrored at lots of sites is a start, but it >>isn't really enough. An archetype (and the reference model it relies >>upon) is essential metadata without which the data stored in the >>database back-end of an openEHR system is meaningless, or at best rather >>hard to interpret. >> >>Thus, archetypes need to be stored, permanently, with the data. This >>implies that each and every openEHR/archetypes storage system must be >>able to permanently cache (that is, archive) each version of every >>archetype definition it has ever used to store any data. > > You have now got what I have been worried about - and the issue is amplified > by every > variation that is permitted. Governance of all this I am not sure is actually > do-able - > what do you think with say 5 different GP systems, 1000 different path and > radiology tests > etc etc..
No, David, I never mentioned governance in my post, and although I agree that careful governance is needed, I do think it is doable. Rather, I'm worried that people will use archetype definitions which are licensed in a way that restrict their freedom to manipulate or transfer their own data (or that of their patients) to others. > I think you have got it quite close - and open-source does not save the day - > its the > information management of the archetypes that may save it As I said, I agreee that management of archetype definitions is important, but I think that open source-style licensing of archetype definitions will prevent lock-in/control problems. > - but the openEHR people seem to > be in denial about establishing the infrastructure to do it....Until this > ongoing > Governance is nailed, certain and ongoing over decades this idea won't work > IMVHO. We'll have to disagree - the openEHR people do seem to be thinking carefully about governance, but not in a heavy-handed way. Show me the governance of anything which is certain and nailed decades into the future - that's an unrealistic expectation. Personally I am much more concerned about the possibility of totalitarian lock-in of data and/or complete dependence on proprietary archetype definitions than I am about an anarchistic confusion of incompatible archetype definitions (although both scenarios are undesirable). Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list Gpcg_talk at ozdocit.org http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
