License and copyright of archetypes
Dear all, These days I have been thinking about the legal issues involving the use of existing archetypes. I have seen that openEHR archetypes available on the Clinical Knowledge Manager are all Copyright (c) 200X openEHR Foundation. But, what does this exactly implies? I can download them freely, but can I use them in a commercial environment? Must I make public specialized archetypes or adaptations from them? Obviously, I is not me but anybody :-) I have searched the openEHR page and wiki but I have not found anything about this topic, just a point in the copyright notice of the specifications linking to the non-existing page http://www.openehr.org/free_commercial_use.htm I think it would be good to start a discussion about licensing. I'm not talking about open source implementations, but about the archetype artifacts that anyone can develop. A first approach that can be made is the use of a Creative Common license. I think that one of them can fit the interests of the openEHR community. In my opinion, the main aspects that a license for archetypes must cover are: - To maintain the attribution to the original author (the openEHR Foundation or whoever) - To allow a commercial use of archetypes (like or not, health is a business) - To allow modifications and derivations of the archetype. - On behalf of the openEHR community, the new derived archetypes should be made public with the same conditions. This is arguable and could be eliminated. As I said, one of the Creative Commons licenses covers all this properties. It is the Attribution Share Alike license: This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use. http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses Finally, this leads to a secondary point. Maybe, the copyright attribute of an archetype should be renamed to license to best fit the conditions of usage of archetypes. What's your opinion? -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090901/184ad8fa/attachment.html
License and copyright of archetypes
An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090901/54dc6e8b/attachment.html -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OceanC_small.png Type: image/png Size: 4972 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090901/54dc6e8b/attachment.png
License and copyright of archetypes
Ok, that page didn't appear to me because I was not logged in the wiki when I made the search :-) It is good to see thar there are discussed more or less the same points as in my mail. Best regards, David 2009/9/1 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com There is now a page for discussing this - http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/Archetypes+-+Copyright+and+Licensing - thomas beale David Moner wrote: Dear all, These days I have been thinking about the legal issues involving the use of existing archetypes. I have seen that openEHR archetypes available on the Clinical Knowledge Manager are all Copyright (c) 200X openEHR Foundation. But, what does this exactly implies? I can download them freely, but can I use them in a commercial environment? Must I make public specialized archetypes or adaptations from them? Obviously, I is not me but anybody :-) I have searched the openEHR page and wiki but I have not found anything about this topic, just a point in the copyright notice of the specifications linking to the non-existing page http://www.openehr.org/free_commercial_use.htm I think it would be good to start a discussion about licensing. I'm not talking about open source implementations, but about the archetype artifacts that anyone can develop. A first approach that can be made is the use of a Creative Common license. I think that one of them can fit the interests of the openEHR community. In my opinion, the main aspects that a license for archetypes must cover are: - To maintain the attribution to the original author (the openEHR Foundation or whoever) - To allow a commercial use of archetypes (like or not, health is a business) - To allow modifications and derivations of the archetype. - On behalf of the openEHR community, the new derived archetypes should be made public with the same conditions. This is arguable and could be eliminated. As I said, one of the Creative Commons licenses covers all this properties. It is the Attribution Share Alike license: This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use. http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses Finally, this leads to a secondary point. Maybe, the copyright attribute of an archetype should be renamed to license to best fit the conditions of usage of archetypes. What's your opinion? -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -- ___ openEHR-clinical mailing listopenEHR-clinical at openehr.orghttp://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical -- *Thomas Beale Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informaticshttp://www.oceaninformatics.com/ * Chair Architectural Review Board, *open*EHR Foundationhttp://www.openehr.org/ Honorary Research Fellow, University College Londonhttp://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/ Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Societyhttp://www.bcs.org.uk/ * * ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090901/39e2c1f2/attachment.html -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OceanC_small.png Type: image/png Size: 4972 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090901/39e2c1f2/attachment.png
Medinfo 2010.. Re: clinically useful set of archetypes for a connectathon demo
Hi! In addition to deciding on archetypes to use, I believe circulating a couple of complete instance examples fairly soon (this week?) would be very helpful in detecting differences in specification interpretations. Having more than one archetype editor certainly helped detect differences and ambiguities in other parts of the specification earlier. Things to include in the instance examples: - EHR instance data constructed using comoposition archetypes with a couple of nested entry archetypes - Several versions within a versionied composition, both IMPORTED _VERSIONs and ORIGINAL_VERSIONs - Several creating systems producing version branches (and possibly a merge). - Realistic demographic content including some example clinicians, organisations and patients. - Use of the participations attribute of EVENT_CONTEXT (- Possibly also folders) The examples do not right now need to use exactly the optimal archetype set intended for the connectathon, we'll probably raise many important implementation issues discussions anyway. Question: Is CONTRIBUTION information never sent explicitly between systems, but only backward-referenced via AUDIT_DETAILS via the composer attribute of COMPOSITION? Best regards, Erik Sundvall erisu at imt.liu.sehttp://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/Tel: +46-13-227579 On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 20:51, Tony Shannontony.shannon at nhs.net wrote: Thanks Tim, Thats useful. Some other feedback from clinical colleagues would be useful on this. Certainly the high level use cases you posted , ie Newborn and then 65yo with Chronic Diseases should be useful. The detailed candidate content posted up about these 2 I'm not so concerned about directly replicating.. if we can tackle the archetypes needed to do SOAP and Summary noting these can form the basis of the material needed to support both journeys. The top 10 Emergency Archetype work Heather is currently over seeing will begin that. Not sure what timetable is realistic for broadening out ?CKM input to cover the other material needed for SOAP, but Im sure it will be months rather than weeks. It may be that a few of us produce ?a candidate subset of archetypes that can handle both SOAP and Summary for the Connectathon purposes ahead of any ARB/CRB checks, given the time pressures you were suggesting earlier. Dec 1 gives us about 12 weeks I guess. My sense is there must be value in agreeing a small set of very basic set of ?archetypes over the next weeks for these purposes if that helps move forward the Connectathon.. Others may have a view on that? #Heather do you want to comment on this thanks.. Perhaps other can comment on the date time and technical issues for the connectathon. I've updated the wiki as we will be aiming to use Opereffa within the Connectathon, Serefs time will likely be constrained but thankfully he is certainly willing to try... Regards, Tony Tim Cook wrote: Hi Tony, I have added two potential use cases http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/Connect-a-thon+Details now I need clinicians to tell the rest of us is this a doable situation. Can we do these two with the 15-20 archetypes that were discussed below? If not, what needs to change? I also need feedback on the other items on that page. Also, please start making commitments to participate. http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/Connect-a-thon +Participants If we do not have systems signed up and committed to participate then we are wasting our time in planning the event. Cheers, Tim On Fri, 2009-08-21 at 10:22 +0100, Tony Shannon wrote: Thanks Tim, In reply.. I am a believer in keeping things simple where possible. My sense is that we can demostrate an impressive solution if we offer support around a single/few patient journey(s) and a limited set of archetypes. Let me play devils advocate and suggest all we need to address for the majority of this is just 2 overlapping groups of archetypes. 1) The Emergency Summary set (Top10) that Heather has been polling for 2) The SOAP note set Note that these have significant overlap. That journey could begin in any/many ways.. eg 1) Newborn .. with a SOAP note http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:YO6tdfa2xXgJ:faculty.washington.edu/alexbert/MEDEX/Spring/MCHNewBornsoapnote.doc+soap+note+newbornscd=5hl=enct=clnkgl=uk Home with a Summary note 2) To the Primary Care doc.. with a new SOAP note At end of visit.. an updated Summary 3) To the ED/other Unit.. where we access the Summary Then we add a new SOAP note Then we update the Summary 4)..into old age.. When a Long Term condition requires more SOAP notes and updates to the Summary and so on and so on.. OK a very simplistic example, but I hope it illustrates a point. If some think that its too broad then we could use a subset of that journey..again only needing with SOAP and Summary. The top 10 Summary drive has already begin the process of now starting to explore
