IMHO, 1. BC is not under the scope of the openEHR specs, if it's useful, can be implemented by companies/developers over any system, including openEHR compliant systems. I don't think we need to make any statements about BC from the foundation. If we follow that path, we might need to release statements about any technology that might be applied for health information systems and I think we shouldn't. Since we are few and this community is small, we should focus on the scope, try to improve the specs, and try to play nice with other specs and technologies.
2. If someone is interested in BC, might write an ITS document relating openEHR and BC at the implementation technology level, I don't see any links between BC as a technology and openEHR as a specification. My 2C. On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl> wrote: > Thomas, I shouldn't have written my previous reply, I try again. > I stuck on elaborating on unsafe systems. > > What I wanted to say is that systems are not safe and never will be safe. > > Safety must come from the data, every event must be in an unbreakable > chain, this chain must also include a digital signing to be able to prove > altering of data. > Looking at data is also an event which needs to be in the chain. > > And the chain must facilitate the right from the patient to be forgotten > and the right from the patient for correction. That seems contradictory but > maybe it is not. > > And the chains must be cheap. > > What we need now is crypto analysts which can work this out. > > That is what I wanted to say. > > Best regards > Bert Verhees > > Op 15 nov. 2017 17:11 schreef "Thomas Beale" <thomas.be...@openehr.org>: > > That is okay, Gerard, no need to be very sorry. It is just a discussion. >> Exchanging opinions. >> >> What do you think about the passages I mentioned in the same document on >> page 12 and 13 >> >> Op 16 nov. 2017 00:59 schreef "GF" <gf...@luna.nl>: >> >>> Bert, >>> >>> I’m very sorry. >>> What I wrote I found it at their summary (page 8) of the NICTIZ document. >>> Of course it is my selection from that text. >>> >>> Gerard Freriks >>> +31 620347088 <+31%206%2020347088> >>> gf...@luna.nl >>> >>> On 16 Nov 2017, at 00:53, Bert Verhees <bert.verh...@rosa.nl> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Gerard, Nictiz published hundreds of pages about blockchain. So if >>> it is a hype (which it is), then Nictiz is playing an important role in >>> that. >>> >>> You cannot summarize those hundreds of pages to a few words and then >>> state that that reflects the opinion of Nictiz. Blockchain is a >>> comprehensive subject. >>> >>> Please read this document, which is an nuanced inventory of their >>> positions regarding this: >>> https://www.nictiz.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/Whitepapers/Bl >>> ockchain_in_de_zorg.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-technical mailing list >>> openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org >>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_ >>> lists.openehr.org >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- > technical_lists.openehr.org > -- Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez e: pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com p: +598 99 043 145 skype: cabolabs <http://cabolabs.com/> http://www.cabolabs.com https://cloudehrserver.com Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj>
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
