Archetype ontology
Hello all This is a useful discussion - I am much more with Karsten than Gerard on this - all the 'proofs' in the world amount to nothing in the digital world - as things can be altered at any point anyway. The GnuMed trust solution does get someway towards this. The technical solutions offered at the moment really do not match the reality and until we have working EHR systems and integration, these sorts of debate need to stay in the background. They do not really impinge greatly on the EHR requirements. But keep it up! Sam Heard -Original Message- From: owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org [mailto:owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org]On Behalf Of Karsten Hilbert Sent: Sunday, 15 September 2002 6:57 PM To: Gerard Freriks Cc: David Guest; Openehr-Technical; Ton Smit Subject: Re: Archetype ontology 1) How do I know that the passphrase I typed in to be used for the secret key is used to sign what I see on screen and nothing else ? 2) How does the court know that a signed screenshot was actually shown on screen and not just fabricated and never shown ? (It is my responsibility to _inspect_ what is being shown but I cannot prove that signed screenshots were actually displayed (on current-day systems). This isn't about 100% proof, this is about level of trust, feasability, deniability and due process. Even with signing screenshots. Or did I miss something ? Since it is my responsiblity to carefully inspect the on-screen information I could just as well extend that view to that it is my responsibility to use a system that I can trust to show me what is actually in the database. Thusly I could just as well sign database content. Gerard himself remarked that we cannot sign that anyone actually reviewed any information, only that it was made available. The latter can be at the level of a screenshot - or at the level of database content. After all it is my responsibility to inform myself no matter where I get the information from. Say, I am using an SQL shell and sign screenshots of my queries. Does this mean I am not liable for the anaphylactic reaction just because I didn't do the query for the known penicillin allergy ?!? Obviously not, although I understand your position to be: It hasn't been shown to me hence I am not to blame. What other purpose might a signed screenshot server ? To shift blame to the EHR software manufacturer ? Lastly, one simple question. How does TNO propose to handle the audit trail of signed screenshots simply in terms of storage requirements ? Making a hash of a screen dump indicates: This is the information as I saw it on a screen and take responsibility for it by signing. Nah, I doubt you really believe in the coherency of this statement. A screendump merely shows what a screen _may_ have looked like. Karsten Hilbert -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
openEHR Silver Model
Hi, My personal thoughts are: This discussion is trivial. CEN decided to: - renew the ENV 13606 - use the two model approach - produce a standard that can be used to produce: messages, documents and implementable objects My preference is the platinum model :-) But I go for the gold one. And as long as we can show that one is able to map to the silver one or the bronze one, I see no problem. Mapping means that we are able to produce an Archetype that fulfils the requirements of all those models. A consequence of the decision taken by CEN is that the Kernel (including the data types) plus the Archetype model must be stable and as complete as possible. The various degrees of granularity (that equals the number of concepts and equals the number of archetypes and complexity of it) will be outside of the control of the standardisation organisation. It will be in the hands of the domain experts/user communities. Each user community that wants to exchange information will use the Kernel and Archetype Model plus the set of agreed archetypes it needs to use. So we must provide all proponents of the bronze and silver options archetypes that fulfil their requirements. My option is the Patinum one ;-) Gerard Ps: A likewise argument can be made for the data type problem. We have the PT41 proposal, the HL7 one and the OpenEHR one. Possibly we have to show that all three are mappable and therefore equally correct and interchangeable. On 17-09-2002 05:48, Andrew Goodchild andrewg at dstc.edu.au wrote: Hi All, I know this is probably a very politically sensitive topic, but I am wondering what the path forward for harmonization of openEHR with CEN 13606. I was talking to Peter Schloeffel yesterday and Peter mentioned that there are three options: - the bronze option, which involved fixing a couple of things in the existing CEN model and adding archetypes to it. - the silver option, which simplifies and modifies openEHR and uses that as a basis for the new CEN model - the gold option, which uses the full openEHR model as the basis for the new CEN model Peter also mentioned to me that it was highly likely that the silver option would be the most successful. My question to the list is, what would you simplify or modify in the openEHR model? My gut feeling is to remove everything not required by ISO 18308, but I am not sure what that would entail or the side effect of that. Any thoughts? cheers, Andrew _-_|\Andrew Goodchild / * DSTC Pty Ltd \_.-._/ Brisbane, Australia vhttp://staff.dstc.edu.au/andrewg/ - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org -- Gerard Freriks, MD Convenor CEN/TC251 WG1 TNO-PG Zernikedreef 9 Leiden The Netherlands +31 71 5181388 +31 654 792800 - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
