My suggestion is for the this point "Begin an open source software project for tools, web-based if possible, to author archetypes, templates and terminology reference sets directly interacting with the Clinical Knowledge Manager and equivalent repository and review tools"
I agree with the first part (create web-based open source tools), but I think that the second part should be clarified. We should define a basic API to access repositories, to avoid doing ad-hoc implementations for each one of the possible repositories 2011/9/5 Erik Sundvall <erik.sundvall at liu.se>: > Hi! > Kudos for moving forward! > > Plans seem to take some promising directions even though that whitepaper > at... > http://www.openehr.org:8888/openehr/321-OE/version/default/part/AttachmentData/data/openEHR%20Foundation%20moving%20forward.pdf > ...still needs some serious editing in order to better strengthen trust in > openEHRs future. > 1. First a procedural question: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 03:00, Sam Heard (forwarded via Thomas Beale) wrote: >> I am writing on behalf of the new Transitional Board of openEHR to share >> our >> plans to take openEHR to a new level of operations... > > Was that whitepaper formally ratified by the new board, or by the old board, > or is it's current state just a suggestion by Sam? I know for sure that some > people in the acknowledgements... > >> Acknowledgements: Thank you to David Ingram, Dipak Kalra, Thomas Beale, >> Martin van der Meer and Tony Shannon for assisting in the planning. > > ...would likely object to part of it's current content. > > 2. A second procedural question: > What is the mandate period of the transitional board? When will the > suggested new structure with an elected board start? That date seems to be > missing in the mail and in the document, but having an end date is very > likely important for building trust in any kind of stated interim governance > system (ask the people in the middle east and northern Africa...). > > 3. A document content change suggestion: > Remove the CC-BY-SA part in the licencing discussion (page 5) since it makes > the document authors and anybody ratifying it look incompetent. Saying that > original things are CC-BY and that derivative models should be CC-BY-SA is > just plain stupid. Then the originals are NOT CC-BY. It's just as silly as > saying that a piece of open source code is licenced under Apache II licence > but that any derivative code must be licenced under GPL... > > The thoughts behind the third point in the "Principles of licencing" are > understandable, but as stated over and over again, e.g. at... > http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal?focusedCommentId=13041696#comment-13041696 > ...the SA part of CC-BY-SA won't help against copyright and patent abuse. > Only fighting possible upcoming bad patents in particular and bad patent > laws in general might save the openEHR community form patent abuse. > A more practical way is to enforce good licencing (e.g. CC-BY) upon import > of archetypes and archetyped data in real systems and tools. That will at > the same time protect against anybody sneaking in badly licenced stuff that > is not derived from openEHR original archetypes (something that a?CC-BY-SA > scheme never will be able to protect against.) > There are many other interesting things to discuss and clarify in the white > paper, but let's start here :-) > Again, thanks for working towards a more understandable openEHR foundation. > Best regards, > Erik Sundvall > erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733 > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > >
