Hi David, I think the current tools are as good as one can imagine for this moment, what I mentioned was of the tools we need to the future, and maybe some ideas to add to the whitepaper. (I wanted to be clear in this point, sometimes my bad english doesn't let me to express my ideas in a clear way, sorry for that).
What I meant with free&open tools was ment for the local and regional CKMs, and with a clear API, we could develope local CKMs that are interoperable with the global CKM (without changing any of the current great work). Thank you David, I'm here to help in any way I can. I'm sure that openEHR is the way to go and I'm sure that we need to move forward together. There are a lot of great professionals in this community and I have learned and grow a lot since the first time I worked with openEHR in 2006. I regret there aren't more coleagues from south america participating on this great community, that's why I insist with the local openEHR communities, to engage this people (and selfishly to don't feel so lonely :D). Cheers, Pablo. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 20:39:05 +0100 From: [email protected] To: openehr-clinical at openehr.org Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: Community Knowledge repository Hi Pablo - re- your important observation below. It was a difficult decision to go with a proprietary product to underpin the openEHR CKM, but at the time there was no apparent open source tool to provide the first stage functionality required. It is complex and expensive software to develop and maintain and, through the good offices of Sam and Ocean, we secured a free license to support the CKM repository, which we were thereby enabled to make quickly available for experimental use. Of course, open-source tools are not cost and resource neutral options, but it is certainly easier for many to engage along an open source pathway of development. That said, I believe that going with the proprietary CKM was a sensible decision at the time (it was and had to be Dipak's and mine, I should say, and in no way an Ocean decision). It has certainly been fully vindicated, in my eyes, by the free use that has been made of it, which we can observe day by day, within both the openEHR community and several cognate groupings, all over the world, exploring and working with the archetypes now residing in the public CKM repository that Ocean has generously created and maintained throughout, for the openEHR community. Looking forward, Ian's link with Derek Hoy/Snowcloud and the offer he has made, is interesting and potentially a very useful new thread in the tooling agenda for openEHR. I don't think anyone imagines we are near to an ideal tooling environment to support effective clinical engagement with archetype/template/terminology development and support. The field will undoubtedly benefit from concerted and coordinated efforts to create new and better open source tooling in this area - a goal that is dear to many clinicians' hearts, I know - Tony Shannon and Dipak Kalra, to name but two! Forgive my inquisitiveness, Pablo, but I have just located and read your impressive CV and you seem exactly the right sort of person to join with others discussing here, in taking forward an initiative like that for the openEHR community. Once Sam and the new board (fully operational from October 1st) has given time for its current consultation about future governance to evolve into decisions about next steps, I very much hope there will be a way for you to do so. David I -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110909/9c69212d/attachment.html>
