On 04/04/2016 14:07, Bakke, Silje Ljosland wrote:
Hi,
The project has now done a preliminary CAMSS assessment of openEHR.
It’s identified some issues that I would like some input on:
1.A.16: “Are the technical specification or standards reviewed using a
formal review process with all relevant external stakeholders (e.g.
public consultation)?”
·The review process is not described. There is a documented a"change
process"
(http://www.openehr.org/programs/specification/changeprocess), but it
seems to be for change. Here, however, neither “review” isn’t
described any more than that input from members of the "community" is
sought for major changes.
there are a number of pages describing governance; see e.g. this one
<http://www.openehr.org/programs/specification/governance>. Goals
described here <http://www.openehr.org/programs/specification/>. The
left hand menu shows the others.
The general process is:
* new specifications are added to the current working baseline of a
Component (list shown on the governance page - AM, RM, CDS etc) and
are announced publicly. They have status = development. The various
statuses are shown here
<http://www.openehr.org/programs/specification/changeprocess#lifecycle>.
This makes them publicly visible.
* for some period of time, development will continue, and users of the
draft spec will report problems on the main Problem Report tracker
<https://openehr.atlassian.net/projects/SPECPR/issues/SPECPR-168?filter=allopenissues>,
or in other ways. These will be addressed by the specification owner.
* At some point, it will be determined by the SEC
<http://www.openehr.org/programs/specification/editorialcommittee>,
in consultation with the community, that the specification is stable
enough to be classified as 'trial', and it will be included in a
named Release of the relevant component.
* It will now be subject to formal change control, and every change
made to it will require a Change Request on the relevant component
CR tracker
<https://openehr.atlassian.net/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=10190>.
* At some later point, it will be determined by the SEC, in
consultation with the community that the specification can be
classified as 'stable', and it will be marked as such.
* A specification may be subsequently retired if it no longer serves a
purpose.
All of this lifecycle is managed by the SEC
<http://www.openehr.org/programs/specification/editorialcommittee>, in
consultation with the community. All documents are openly available on
the web, and the sources are in publicly visible Git repositories
<https://github.com/openEHR?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=spec>. All of the PR
and CR trackers are publicly visible and writeable (requires login, to
prevent spam).
The wiki <https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/dashboard.action>is used
extensively as a discussion and planning resource in these processes.
It is the default situation that input from the community is always
sought - announcements are made of all major changes in the above
process, and community members can become involved in a number of ways.
2.A.18: “Is relevant documentation of the development and approval
process of the specification archived and identified?”
·Issue and problem tracker available but it’s hard to find/access.
Approval process archive not found.
See the CR trackers
<https://openehr.atlassian.net/issues/secure/Dashboard.jspa>, i.e.
SPECxx. There is a link on the home page (top right corner) going
straight to these; also from the specifications governance pages.
3.A.23: “Is relevant documentation of the development and approval
process of technical specification or standards publicly available
(e.g. preliminary results, committee meeting notes)?”
·We’ve been unable to find any minutes from meetings or preliminary
results anywhere.
SEC face to face meeting documentation is published here
<https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/display/spec/Specifications+Editorial+Committee+%28SEC%29+Work+area>.
Community f2f meetings are reported as well, e.g. this one in 2014
<http://www.openehr.org/news_events/events.php?id=101>. Admittedly,
these resources should be more clearly linked - we'll fix that.
The Management Board publishes a monthly update on the foundation news
list on the web <http://www.openehr.org/news_events/foundation_news>. I
think this may also go via email directly to subscribed members, but I
would have to check on that one.
4.A.26: “Does the maintenance organisation for the technical
specification or standard have sufficient finances and resources to be
sure of freedom from short- to medium-term threats?”
·Unable to find any info about this.
What does the question mean?
5.A.27: “Does the technical specification or standard have a defined
policy for version management?”
·The change process has a description about version numbering, but we
can’t find anything about handling different versions, compatibility, etc.
Eveything is versioned in openEHR; the release strategy
<http://www.openehr.org/programs/specification/releasestrategy>describes
the rules of versions assignment to releases. Other than that, we would
need to know the specific question to be able to answer better.
6.A.45: “Are there existing or planned mechanisms to assess conformity
of the implementations of the technical specification or standard
(e.g. conformity tests, certifications)?”
·Can’t find anything about this on the web pages.
this is an area of active development in openEHR and now has its own
Component. Currently the only proper conformance testing is done by
validation of XML data against the published openEHR XML schemas.
7.A.48: “Does the technical specification or standard address backward
compatibility with previous versions?”
·Can’t find any info about this on the web pages.
see the above link to release strategy.
- thomas
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
