Dear all, I'd like to express my concerns about practical outcomes of suggested changes, changes based on potential benefits. I'd appreciate your input about the use cases we are discussing just to make sure that I get this right. First of all, translation of openEHR documentation to other languages is a very critical task, which would be quite a challenge, because we are talking about very high quality documentation, to which I keep going back quite often, mostly to find out that a point that I was missing has already been there, expressed carefully. At one point I've thought about translating the docs to Turkish, my mother tongue, and realized that not having a Framemaker licence was the least of my problems. Reflecting the same quality, and more important than that, the same semantics consistenty in other languages is a huge challange. It requires understanding of the domain, the standard, and possesion of more than ordinary control over two languages, one being English. Also, as a member of openEHR community I would not like to see translations of the specs in the wild, with no official approval or inclusion from openEHR foundation, since this can easily lead to confusing documentation on an already confusing topic, which is challanging enough to master with really good docs. I would like to know if there are efforts, or even intentions of translating this documentation to other languages, and the owners of these intentions. How many translations of the documentation will be for Spanish for example? If a person would give this task a try, due to reasons expressed above, he/she would have to possess quite a lot of time, skills and he/she would have to communicate with openEHR to make sure that the outcomes do not do harm instead of doing good. My opinion is, this would be an effort linked to an institutuion like a university, or a government agency, working with openEHR. I can't see people working in their homes/offices on their own, doing this whole work, and if there are people like this, I really want to know them. The point? Well, the translation would mostly likely be performed by people with resources. A framemaker 9 licence would be the least of their problems. Again, please let us know if there is a person out there, comminting to translation, committing to ensure its quality, and committing to its maintanance, and is not able to move forward, just because he/she can't afford a licence for Framemaker. I appreciate the effort for preserving the idea of openness in all aspects of openEHR, but I want to see Tom producing documentation efficiently. This is his time spend in front of a computer, and I do not want him working slower, or producing inferior quality output, which is what will obviously happen if he does not use Framemaker. I have to confess that I am failing to see the fairness of asking Tom to commit more of his time today, for potential future benefits, which have significant prerequisites that must be covered, before they can be realized. Having used Framemaker html, xml outputs to produce documentation for Eclipse plugins, I'm fine with the idea of documentation being exported to these formats from framemaker. PDF outputs are simply read only docs, doing exactly what they are created for, providing cross platform access to documentation. So I don't see the point of critisizing them for not being appropriate for translation either, since they are not produced to be edited at all. Conclusion: please let us see concrete use cases,that justifies making the suggested changes, build on not only on idealism but also actual cost benefit analysis, and we can build a solution, or a roadmap from there. I'd rather see this wonderful community move forward, trying to stay close to its principles as much as it can, with its available resources, than see it watch others progress while we fail to do so just because we're getting ready for a better future all the time.
Best Regards Seref On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Tim Cook <timothywayne.cook at gmail.com>wrote: > On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 10:08 +0200, Erik Sundvall wrote: > > > In a previous license discussion I suggested the much more commonly > > understood and more open CC-BY licence > > (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) to be used for the > > specification documents, but I believe the discussion then slipped > > over to just licensing for archetypes. Can we solve this while we are > > at it? > > Well, I'm still waiting to hear from the openEHR Foundation Board > (officially) on this issue since they are the only governing body we > have. > > I'm not personally concerned with the notice you pointed out because my > re-use strictly adheres to items 2&3. However, commercial > users/developers such as Ocean Informatics may or may not be in breach > of that license. That is for the Foundation Board to decide. There > does seem to be some conflict with some of the content notices and > licenses regarding commercial use though. It basically depends on where > you look on the website. > > The openEHR Foundation, as a legal entity in the UK (and the web site > claims globally), supported by CHIME/UCL and Ocean Informatics I assume > have sought proper legal counsel? > > --Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090925/10c35f8e/attachment.html>
