Christopher Feahr wrote: >this, of course, raises the issue of the certification of the >certifiers... i.e., where does the meta-certification-buck stop? In my >opinion, certification (that an application, record structure, message, >data elements, archetypes, etc. conform to a particular version of >"registered" standard) should be undertaken ONLY by the SDO who >maintains the standard, or by an agent that is directly certified by the >SDO to perform this function in its place. > >What certification business models have been contemplated by this group? > >Incidentally, I see "certification services" being a principle revenue >stream for the SDO or "maintenance authority", along with license fees >to use and advertise conformance to the standard. Has the group >considered specific business plans for the development and maintenance >of these EHR standards products? > > this is the openEHR model - everything is free to use (of course;-) but openEHR would need to change something for certification of a claimed openEHR vX.X compliant component - essentially for the right to be able to use the conformance mark "openEHR xxx compliant". The testing will be conducted by a group whcih acts independently, and will be based on published test specifications. A licence fee structure has not been determined, apart from the basic principle of "dual-licencing" (free for non-commercial use under open source licence, else under a normal commercial licence). Some interesting models have been suggested, including runtime "licencing" called a "penny a patient per annum".
- thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
