> -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Churches [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, 8 January 2006 11:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; General Practice Computing Group Talk > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Brendan Scott > Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Archetype Maintenance > > > 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,
Hi Tim I've not seen any plan regarding governance apart from the statement: " We have trademarked openEHR and do not release anything without copyright as there is a need for an authorative publisher of archetypes. The openEHR Foundation will not accept any archetypes that are not free to use to be labelled with openEHR." (Sam) and the implicit hope that everyone will play nicely (which they may well do if "educated self-interest" can be brought to bear). What do you see as the openEHR model of governance? Nigel > 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 > [email protected] > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
