David More wrote: > Hi Tim, > > I think you will find DSTC was a CRC like entity that had a mix of government > and private > funding with an objective of developing intellectual property that could > later be > commercialised. > > One activity DSTC were involved in (before becoming Extensia) was the > Healthconnect South > Brisbane Trial where they provided some form of archetype based EHR for use > in the trial. > (The results of this trial I don't believe have ever been made public and I > am not sure > how successful the trial was) > > Mark Gibson - I assume - or someone else from Extensia - complained on my > blog recently > that when reviewing the "Children of HealthConnect" I had left them out but > offered no > information as to the status of the trial. > > The IP issue for openEHR must be very complex since GEHR was originally an EU > Framework > Project paid for by the European Commission. Since then all sorts of > university and > private funds must have been used. Then the DSTC trial, which added to the > IP, was > Australian Government funded. And Qld probably paid for some component as > well. > > Just what Extensia can actually sell might be a bit tricky to figure out I > suspect. Fun > for the IP lawyers?
No, the IP issues surrounding openEHR are quite clear, I think. As far as I know, no patents hon openEHR ideas have been applied for anywhere by anyone, and the openEHR specification documents (gaps as found by Jon Patrick notwithstanding) are all published under a license which allows anyone to freely implement the ideas and specs that they contain. Can't ask for better than that. There are some issues surrounding the licensing of archetype definitions published by the openEHR Foundation and Ocean Informatics. The intent of the current licensing arrangements is that the archetype definitions be freely shareable but the actual licenses (two different ones apply to "commercial" versus "non-commercial" settings) are not right in my lay opinion (details too arcane and boring to discuss here, but I will write it all up soon) - basically the "commercial" license, is too liberal and does not enforce "copyleft" arrangements to prevent data lock-in, and the "non-commercial" license is way too restrictive and prevents academics and individuals from doing what they need to do. However, the basic intent of the licensing is right and the legal details of the licenses can readily be fixed by a competent information technology IP lawyer (and I have recommended such a person to them). So the only other IP issue relates to software implementation of openEHR ideas and standards, and the situation there is surely that each company concerned owns the software IP, public funding for it in Extensia's (or DSTC's) case notwithstanding. That's not unusual: public R&D funds are provided all the time to enable private companies to develop privately held IP - it is a feature of our economic and political system (which doesn't mean that it is right, just that it happens all the time). Tim C > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:52:43 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: >> David More wrote: >>> Tim and All, >>> >>> Just what is going on here?. >>> >>> After 15 years we are being asked to wait till January to be given a >>> pricing model for > something that has not been shown to be deployable in any real >>> sense. I tend not to buy "pigs in pokes" as they say. >>> >> Mark Gibson from Extensia indicated that their pricing models should be >> determined by early next year. Extensia have not been doing openEHR and >> GEHR for 15 years - they are a private company which has, I understand, >> been spun off from the publicly-funded DSTC organisation. DSTC has >> received public HealthConnect funds since the early 00's to develop >> openEHR-based software for HealthConnect trials (see for example >> http://www.cio.com.au/index.php?id=601636892&eid=-601 ). >> >> It will be most interesting to see the pricing models for the openEHR >> technology which Extensia has developed with these public funds. >> >>> If they have something that actually works how about a six month free >>> license for those > like yourself and Jon Patrick to evaluate the material in their >>> labs and provide some feedback to the rest of us. >>> >> They have not ruled that out - talks will now be opened on this sort of >> arrangement, I suspect. >> >> Tim C >> >>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:23:13 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: >>>> Hugh Leslie wrote: >>>>> Hi Tim >>>>> >>>>> You are right - software has been in development for many years - I >>>>> remember being >>>>> >>> shown a working gehr kernel back in about 2000 and a number of kernels >>> >>>>> have been built since. >>>>> >>>> yes, and perhaps with that in mind you can understand the >>>> disappointment, which has begun to turn into frustration and outright >>>> annoyance when >>>> >>> Ocean Informatics and openEHR people pop up at every health informatics >>> >>>> conference and in every online health informatics forum promoting openEHR >>>> as the best >>>> >>> way forward. That may be the case, but those of us who have been around >>> >>>> for a while can't help but think, and say, that it also seems to be a >>>> bloody slow way >>>> >>> forward. >>>> I suspect that the slow pace has been due to a lack of big investors >>>> (either public or >>>> >>> private sector) to back this project. I'm not sure whether the lack of >>> >>>> investors has been because Ocean Informatics has not sought such funds, or >>>> whether it >>>> >>> wanted to retain independence (other people's money always comes with >>>> strings attached), or whether investors were dubious. I can understand why >>>> many > existing >>> health informatics software vendors might be frightened by openEHR, >>>> because it promises technologies which will undermine much of their >>>> existing business >>>> >>> models. But there are many other sources of R&D funding, and I am >>>> surprised these have not been able to have been tapped to accelerate >>>> development. >>>> >>>> However, I was sent a private message by Mark Gibson of Extensia, further >>>> describing >>>> >>> their complete, production-ready openEHR system. He was reluctant to >>>> post the message to the GPCG list after the mauling he got following his >>>> first > message, >>> but I told him that if he wants to flog software to GPs, he'd better >>>> get used to being mauled - they're a tough market. Anyway, he indicated >>>> that pricing >>>> >>> models for their stuff will be ready early in the new year, at stage >>>> their may be real enthusiasm amongst local developers and academic units >>>> to evaluate >>>> >>> what they have done - provided the pricing is reasonable. >>>>> What we have developed more recently has not come >>>>> from nothing but is based on all the work and experience that has gone >>>>> before. The >>>>> >>> release of version 1.0 of openEHR has enabled us to work confidently >>>>> towards commercially useable software and we are at that point now. >>>>> >>>> "Commercially usable" means that you are willing to let the software out >>>> of your >>>> >>> development labs and let other people install it in their servers to test >>> >>>> and evaluate. Have you actually reached that point? Thomas Beale indicated >>>> not just > two >>> or three weeks ago on the openhealth list. >>>>> My point about version 1.0 is that this is giving people confidence that >>>>> things are >>>>> >>> settled and are not likely to change dramatically. I think we are >>>>> likely to see a lot more software becoming available in the next 12 >>>>> months from other >>>>> >>> sources. >>>> Yup, see comments above re Extensia. >>>> >>>> Tim C >>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Tim Churches [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 14 December 2006 8:57 PM >>>>>> To: Hugh Leslie; [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: Re: Where is openEHR going? - was RE: [GPCG_TALK] Request for >>>>>> XML dump for >>>>>> >>> RAIL >>>>>> Hugh Leslie wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Tim >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wish you would sit down with us and have a look at what >>>>>>> >>>>>> we are doing >>>>>>> rather than 'be a cynical bastard'! >>>>>> Well I did spend many hours corresponding with Thomas Beale and Sam >>>>>> Heard a few > weeks >>> ago, trying to work out where you guys were up to with >>>>>> implementation. Trying to get details was like trying to get blood out >>>>>> of the >>>>>> >>> proverbial. I asked Sam Heard if I could forward messages which Thomas, he >>> >>>>>> and you had sent to me in reply to the openhealth list, but Sam asked >>>>>> that I didn't, >>>>>> >>> so instead I have done my best to accurately convey what I >>>>>> understood the situation was. >>>>>> >>>>>>> We have appreciated your support over >>>>>>> the years and I can understand your frustration, however we >>>>>>> >>>>>> have been >>>>>>> working really hard with few resources - most of the software >>>>>>> described below is > the >>> product of small teams working with >>>>>> very small >>>>>>> budgets. Its only really in the last 12 months since >>>>>>> >>>>>> version one was >>>>>>> released that all this has happened. >>>>>> What I find remarkable, and I think that I am not alone in this, is that >>>>>> for a > project >>> which has been under development for a decade or more, and which >>>>>> has been described and promoted at conferences, on the openEHR and other >>>>>> Web sites > and >>> in various papers for nearly that long, serious effort to actually >>>>>> build software implementations of the ideas has only taken place in the >>>>>> last 12 >>>>>> >>> months. Clearly I am an empiricist (which is a highly forgivable trait in >>> >>>>>> an epidemiologist) rather than a theoretician. However, I suspect that >>>>>> many others > on >>> this list share my empirical leanings. >>>>>>> I have included part of the text of the email I sent to you >>>>>>> >>>>>> recently >>>>>>> and again would be happy to sit down with you and show you >>>>>>> >>>>>> where we are at. >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, I'm glad you have reproduced this email because I asked you, Sam >>>>>> Heard and > Thomas >>> Beale whether I could forward the information to the openhealth >>>>>> list, Sam replied "We'd rather you didn't." >>>>>> >>>>>>> ALL >>>>>>> of this software was demonstrated at the Ocean stand at HIC >>>>>>> >>>>>> this year, >>>>>>> including taking HL7v2 pathology and radiology results and storing them >>>>>>> as openEHR >>>>>>> >>> compositions in the database. >>>>>>> We as a company at the moment are more concerned about >>>>>>> >>>>>> having too much >>>>>>> work and too much interest rather than not enough. Most of >>>>>>> >>>>>> this is in >>>>>>> Europe, and I for one am proud to be part of an Australian company that >>>>>>> is doing >>>>>>> >>> world recognised work in this area. >>>>>>> "We currently have demonstrable software that: >>>>>>> - creates archetypes (the ocean archetype editor and a >>>>>>> >>>>>> java archetype >>>>>>> editor). >>>>>>> - We can take the archetypes and create templates from >>>>>>> >>>>>> them which you >>>>>>> can use to build gui forms using a drag and drop process. (Ocean >>>>>>> Template Designer) > - We have worked with clients who have taken these guis >>>>>> and used them >>>>>>> to enter data and save the data into our repository. (Ocean EhrBank) - >>>>>>> EhrBank is > an >>> openEHR repository which will store any archetyped data (the ocean >>>>>>> kernel sits on top of it providing the ability to build openEHR objects >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> >>> archetypes or templates. >>>>>>> - We have a query editor that allows you to build sql like >>>>>>> >>>>>> queries to >>>>>>> query the data and we have clients in Turkey that have successfully >>>>>>> demonstrated > this >>> functionality for themselves. >>>>>>> - We have software that allows you to display data queried >>>>>>> >>>>>> from the >>>>>>> repository in a web page. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We also have a terminology service that is well integrated into the >>>>>>> tools and > allows >>> you to build pre-defined queries in snomed etc. These can then be >>>>>>> used in a gui to allow clinicians to select terms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are not the sort of company that hypes up its wares and >>>>>>> >>>>>> so Tom is >>>>>>> being honest with you in saying that these systems have not been tested >>>>>>> in high >>>>>>> >>> volume mission critical situations (although volume testing of the >>>>>>> repository is going on as we speak.) These >>>>>>> >>>>>> tools have >>>>>>> been out there being demonstrated and tested by real clients for at >>>>>>> least 6 months >>>>>>> >>> and we have generated a lot of interest >>>>>> across Europe >>>>>>> (In particular Turkey, the Netherlands and Denmark and >>>>>>> >>>>>> there is a lot of interest in the UK). >>>>>>> Most of these tools have been built since openEHR v1.0 was released >>>>>>> >>>>>> Hugh is referring to Version 1.0 of the openEHR >>>>>> specifications, not Version 1.0 of a software implementation of those > specifications. >>>>>>> so in >>>>>>> fact the timelines have been particularly spectacular in my opinion >>>>>>> especially > since >>> we have done most of it under our own >>>>>> steam. We can >>>>>>> demonstrate the full chain that you referred to but not all >>>>>>> >>>>>> of it is >>>>>>> as slick as we would like it yet (that said, we think its >>>>>>> >>>>>> all pretty >>>>>>> slick!) If you were at HIC this year, you would have seen this all >>>>>>> working at the >>>>>>> >>> stand, and we have come a long way since then. >>>>>>> We are definitely ready to start some small implementations >>>>>>> >>>>>> and there >>>>>>> are opportunities in Australia as well as Europe (and the >>>>>>> >>>>>> US as Sam mentioned.)" >>>>>>> Apart from these things, Tom and I were invited to an >>>>>>> >>>>>> eclipse meeting >>>>>>> in Europe recently to discuss an eclipse version of the >>>>>>> >>>>>> openEHR tools >>>>>>> and this process is on-going. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards Hugh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I forgot to mention that there is the beginnings of an archetype >>>>>>> repository > available >>> from the openEHR web site and the >>>>>> Ocean web site. >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, thanks, but I don't see that any of this is inconsistent with my >>>>>> take on where > you >>> are at (reproduced below) which I posted to thsi list this >>>>>> morning. As I said, I would have just used your words but Sam Heard >>>>>> asked me not to. >>>>>> >>>>>> I look forward to getting my hands on completed and >>>>>> ready-to-evaluate openEHR software components. Demonstrations don't >>>>>> impress, I need > to >>> be able to use the software >>>>>> components myself, with my data, in the privacy of my server. If you are >>>>>> not at that >>>>>> >>> stage of development, then that's OK, but don't be surprised if the >>>>>> epithets "glacial" and "geological" are being bandied around, given >>>>>> that openEHR > has >>> now been promoted to us as an imminent solution to our health data >>>>>> management woes for many, many years now. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, the Extensia suite sounds interesting. Let's hope it doesn't >>>>>> cost the > earth. >>>>>> Tim C >>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Churches Sent: Thursday, > 14 >>> December 2006 8:50 AM To: General Practice Computing Group Talk >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Request for XML dump for RAIL >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David Guest wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The data is identified as such and grouped in a >>>>>> hierarchy. But its >>>>>>>>>> description and constraints are entirely open and >>>>>>>> undefined. I guess >>>>>>>>>> its a useful lowest common denominator >>>>>>>>> Does anyone think openEHR will ever produce the goods? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There has been correspondence on the openhealth mailing list regarding >>>>>>>> this issue >>>>>>>> >>> recently. David More quipped about >>>>>> "geological >>>>>>>> timescales", perhaps with some justification. To summarise and >>>>>>>> paraphrase > (accuratey >>> I hope) the thread: the openEHR >>>>>> people assure >>>>>>>> us that several private firms are using openEHR-based systems in >>>>>>>> deployed >>>>>>>> >>> proprietary vertical health apps, and that lots >>>>>> of profs and >>>>>>>> students in various universities are studying and >>>>>> tinkering with it. >>>>>>>> The openEHR specifications have been accepted as a >>>>>> proposed standard >>>>>>>> (but not ratified or approved as a standard as yet). Furthermore, >>>>>>>> Ocean > Informatics >>> and the openEHR Foundation are >>>>>> themselves working >>>>>>>> on a suite of tools which actually implement the ideas behind openEHR, >>>>>>>> but these >>>>>>>> >>> tools are in different stages of completeness: tools to define and >>>>>>>> edit openEHR archetype definitions are >>>>>>>> >>>>>> complete >>>>>>>> and available as open source. Tools to actually store and retrieve >>>>>>>> data using >>>>>>>> >>> openEHR archetypes are at alpha or beta stages in the openEHR secret >>>>>>>> laboratory, but have not been fully tested >>>>>>>> >>>>>> and are not >>>>>>>> ready for production use. Thomas Beale has offered access to an >>>>>>>> openEHR engine >>>>>>>> >>> hosted in the Ocean Informatics labs, to be >>>>>> accessed >>>>>>>> via a proprietary Web service interface requiring the use of a >>>>>>>> Microsoft C# .NET > DLL >>> on the client side, for capability-testing purposes by >>>>>>>> interested parties (contact Thomas Beale at Ocean Informatics if you >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> >>> interested). All these openEHR tools still under development may or may not >>> >>>>>>>> be open sourced in the >>>>>>>> >>>>>> future - the >>>>>>>> Ocean Informatics and openEHR people need to investigate business >>>>>>>> models. Other >>>>>>>> >>> parts of the openEHR puzzle, such as a >>>>>> shared library >>>>>>>> of openEHR archetype definitions, and a full query language, are still >>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>> >>> drawing board or in only early stages of >>>>>> implementation. >>>>>>>> Oh, there is also an open source version of an openEHR >>>>>>>> storage/retrieval kernel >>>>>>>> >>> being written in Sweden, but it >>>>>> is not yet >>>>>>>> complete either. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I asked the same questions of the Ocean Informatics and openEHR people >>>>>>>> in 2003, > and >>> after much email correspondence and head scratching, I was >>>>>>>> assured that usable, production-quality openEHR implementations would >>>>>>>> be available >>>>>>>> >>> quite soon. The same assurances were given just a few weeks ago. I >>>>>>>> conclude that they are indeed a bit further along now with actual >>>>>>>> implementation >>>>>>>> >>> than they >>>>>> were three >>>>>>>> years ago, but still have quite a way to go, but it is >>>>>>>> >>>>>> very hard to >>>>>>>> extrapolate the progress line to divine when it might >>>>>>>> >>>>>> cross the V1.0 >>>>>>>> boundary, although the fact that they were working on GEHR (the >>>>>>>> predecessor to >>>>>>>> >>> openEHR) about 15 years ago, and the >>>>>> openEHR has been >>>>>>>> going for nearly a decade might provide some clues. Perhaps the >>>>>>>> remaining distance >>>>>>>> >>> is being halved with every passing year? Or perhaps I am just a >>>>>>>> cynical bastard? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tim C >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Gpcg_talk mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> __________ NOD32 1920 (20061213) Information __________ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >>>>>>>> http://www.eset.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> __________ NOD32 1920 (20061213) Information __________ >>>>>> >>>>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >>>>>> http://www.eset.com >>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gpcg_talk mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk >>>> >>>> __________ NOD32 1922 (20061214) Information __________ >>>> >>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >>>> http://www.eset.com >> >> __________ NOD32 1922 (20061214) Information __________ >> >> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >> http://www.eset.com > _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
