Hi Diego, I have responded to your comments on the Clinical list under
openEHR Transition: Community Knowledge repository as I think this a topic which properly belongs there and absolutely merits further discussion. Regards, Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office +44 (0)1536 414 994 fax +44 (0)1536 516317 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical Modelling Consultant,?Ocean Informatics, UK openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org On 6 September 2011 17:24, Diego Bosc? <yampeku at gmail.com> wrote: > Good to hear about you! I hope everything is ok in Japan. > I would encourage you to put the archetypes on the CKM anyway, as I would > say that most of the available archetypes on the repository are in the > same situation as your archetypes (the implicit 'use under your own > responsibility') > > 2011/9/6 Shinji KOBAYASHI <skoba at moss.gr.jp>: >> Hi All, >> >> I have been suffered by sever jet lag after long trip, while I have >> been thinking about this new white >> paper and our local activity. I could not find such localisation >> activity in this white paper, but please >> consider and mention about such local activity. >> I would like to show these two proposals. >> 1) Local activity support. >> As a global standard, localisation to each country or area is >> necessary. ?My three years experience >> to implementation of the Ruby codes, archetypes and template, we need >> lots of localisation efforts >> for Japanese use. I think this experience may be available to localise >> for other countries. East Asian >> countries people is keen in openEHR development and their engagements >> are promising for their >> health care. >> >> 2) ?Premature artefact repository >> CKM provides us well-considered archetypes and templates. This is a >> great knowledge resource >> for mankind. However, to incubate archetype as a common concept takes >> long time like vintage wine. >> On the other hand, I need more agile movement for daily development. I >> have developed about 50 >> archetypes and 6 templates. These artefacts are still premature to >> evaluate on CKM, but I would >> like to discuss about my artefacts on line with many people. Yes, it >> will be a 99% junk repository, >> but 1% diamond would be a precious for our community. As Major league >> cannot exist without >> minor leagues, I think CKM needs such minor artefacts groups. >> I am preparing to share them on GitHub, because anyone can use >> repository for each use by fork >> and merge request is useful. >> I think the licence of this repository would adopt CC-BY-SA, is this >> OK, Erik and Ian? >> >> Cheers, >> Shinji KOBAYASHI(in Japan, a path of typhoon.) >> >> 2011/9/6 Erik Sundvall <erik.sundvall at liu.se>: >>> Thanks for replying Sam! >>> >>> Erik Wrote (to openEHR-technical at openehr.org): >>>>> 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? >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> >>> wrote: >>>> [Sam Heard] The whitepaper was ratified by the participants in the planning >>>> process, the current Board (Profs. Kalra, Ingram and myself) and the new >>>> Transitional Board. >>> >>> This is a bit worrying for the period until a broader board can be >>> elected. I was hoping that somebody within the new board would be >>> interested enough and have time to take licensing issues and community >>> feedback seriously, let's hope that the board does a bit more research >>> and community dialogue before ratifying a new version of this >>> whitepaper. Could somebody from the board please confirm that you'll >>> take a serious look at this in the near future? >>> >>> Erik wrote: >>>> What is the mandate period of the transitional board? When will the >>>> suggested new structure with an elected board start? >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> >>> wrote: >>>> [Sam Heard] I for one am very happy to express a date for elections if >>>> organisations embrace these arrangements. Clearly if there is no interest >>>> in >>>> participating from industry or organisations then we would have to think >>>> again. I suspect we will then move to election of the Board by Members but >>>> it is our wish to provide a means of determining the governance for >>>> openEHR?s key sponsors. The aim is to balance the Members with governance >>>> from the funders and sponsors. Some may prefer a democratic organisation >>>> top >>>> to bottom; we do not think this will achieve the best results. >>> >>> So there is no absolute end date set. :-( >>> >>> The "if organisations embrace these arrangements" part is worrying, >>> especially since we already have seen failed attempts at getting >>> buy-in from "organisations". >>> >>> Can't you set an absolute latest date (e.g. at the very latest >>> December 31, 2012) when the new arrangements will start no matter if >>> big organisations have made use of the introductory offer of buying a >>> position in the board? If not, we risk having an interim board >>> forever, and we really don't need any more delays in the journey >>> towards community-driven governance. If you get buy-in from the number >>> of big players you want before that absolute end date then there would >>> be nothing stopping you from doing the transition earlier than the >>> "latest date". >>> >>> Erik wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> >>> wrote: >>>> [Sam Heard] If this is true then the SA part of the license has no value. >>>> If >>>> this is true then I have not heard this before. >>> >>> I am very glad if you might have started to see the lack of value in >>> SA for archetypes. Using pure CC-BY (for both archetypes AND >>> specifications) would make the first six points under "Principles of >>> licensing" unnecessary and reduce confusion. >>> >>> At the same time I am very worried about the totally amazing >>> information blocking filter you must have built in if you have "not >>> heard" this argument before. Several people have been questioning your >>> reasoning on this very point for years! >>> >>> On the official openEHR-wikipage set up for this particular question >>> when community feedback was requested... >>> http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal >>> ...you have several people (including Tom Beale) in clear text saying >>> that CC-BY-SA will NOT protect against patent attacks. (Scroll down to >>> the heading "Discussion summaries regarding CC-BY versus CC-BY-SA for >>> content models".) >>> >>> How on earth could you and the entire board miss that when writing up >>> the draft for the transition whitepaper and when making earlier >>> license decisions? >>> >>> One thing that however is very efficient in fighting patent trolls is >>> "prior art". Thus one of the best protections regarding archetypes >>> etc. is to have as much as possible of development completely public, >>> indexed and archived by trusted sites (like http://www.archive.org/). >>> This means always making sure to allow enough search engines and not >>> requiring login in order to read archetype discussions and thoughts in >>> development repositories (things like the CKM). The earlier date the >>> mention of an idea can be traced back to, the more patent claims it >>> will protect against. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Erik Sundvall >>> erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733 >>> >>> P.s. I agree with Pablo & Diego that we need to talk about >>> communication between several repositories, not just discuss the >>> current openEHR-hosted CKM. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-technical mailing list >>> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >> > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
