Hi William, You've got me confused a bit. >From the http://www.hl7.org/legal/ippolicy.cfm :
"...* * *This authorization is provided only during the years when the appropriate HL7 Organizational Membership dues are paid, and if and only if:* 1. *HL7 is clearly identified as publisher and holder of the copyright; and,....*" So if openEHR is proprietary because the foundation is holding the copyright, is not HL7 the same according to the statement above? Kind regards Seref On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:34 PM, William Goossen <wgoossen at results4care.nl>wrote: > Hi Heath, Thomas, > > My experience is that HL7 v3 is an open standard and OpenEHR is proprietary > (as owned by the OpenEHR foundation holding the copyrights, albeit I > understand that work is underway to sort that out). > > William > > -----Original Message----- > From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org > [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of > openehr-technical-request at openehr.org > Sent: maandag 20 februari 2012 23:25 > To: openehr-technical at openehr.org > Subject: openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 67, Issue 34 > > Send openEHR-technical mailing list submissions to > openehr-technical at openehr.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > openehr-technical-request at openehr.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > openehr-technical-owner at openehr.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of openEHR-technical digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. RE: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata > (Koray Atalag) > 2. RE: openEHR - Persistence of Data (Heath Frankel) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:58:33 +0000 > From: Koray Atalag <k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz> > Subject: RE: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata > To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical at openehr.org> > Message-ID: > > <B1CE708E5C614F4BB990E32CC5F03AD41F690A10 at uxcn10-1.UoA.auckland.ac.nz> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi Fred, > > Apropos to Tom I'd say openEHR is also equally to do with software > maintainability; thanks to the dual or multi-level modelling and model > driven development. This is my main research area as well as open source > software. I agree with Tom's comments that being open source by itself is > not enough (for any software quality aspect I believe) and must be > accompanied with open standards. If I was asked to explain openEHR to my > mother I'd probably say: 'it is about getting information right in > healthcare'. I usually find this statement as the starting point when > talking to other audiences such as computer scientists and developers. > Perhaps you'll find useful as well. > > Cheers, > > -koray > > > From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org > [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of fred trotter > Sent: Saturday, 18 February 2012 1:27 p.m. > To: For openEHR technical discussions > Subject: Re: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata > > Thomas, > This is quit usable critique and I will certainly draw from it > in future revisions of the work. > > You make the argument that OpenEHR is primarily for interoperability, and I > can accept that fundamental argument. It is difficult to swallow however, > when I hear the HL7 v3 wonks talking about how HL7 RIM is the solution to > semantic interoperability. Are they confused or are you confused, because > you are saying basically the same thing. From my perspective as in > implementer it looks awefully like a blueray vs HDDVD war and it looks like > OpenEHR is losing. But at the same time I keep hearing that HL7 RIM is > "compatible" with and might be "merged" with HL7 RIM. > > Very confusing, and I have yet to see something compelling that can be done > in OpenEHR that cannot be done with HL7 RIM. > > Having said that, HL7 RIM is a proprietary ontology/model and OpenEHR, is > not. That gives OpenEHR some usefulness even as an alternative model. Is > that where I should see the value? Here is an information model that > delivers semantic interoperability but is not proprietary? > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Thomas Beale > <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com<mailto: > thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > > wrote: > > Hi Fred, > > I think you are missing the point. The key thing we are working on in > openEHR is interoperability, not open source. Open source health > applications have historically not made any difference to interoperability, > intelligent computing or anything else - they are the same as closed source > systems that don't do any of these things. This is not to say that they > aren't better quality software / solutions in other ways - some are very > nice. But in general they have the same proprietary data formats and > service > interfaces as commercial solutions (making such definitions openly > available > doesn't change anything). > > Solving interoperability and intelligence in e-health (as for other > domains) > is very hard indeed, and solutions based on simple approaches only have > marginal benefit. What matters to clinical people and actual health > delivery > is interoperability, regardless of closed or open source: open standardised > (= widely agreed) information models, service interfaces and knowledge > formalisms. Of course open source, done the right way does have a lot to > offer, and can make the economics better, but it doesn't specifically > address the interoperability problem. > > What I think you will see in the future is intelligent health computing > platforms based on openEHR, or something like it (as you noted, Tolven also > does not have much penetration today, but it also is a sophisticated > solution that takes semantic interoperability seriously). See the CIMI > forum<http://informatics.mayo.edu/CIMI/index.php/London_2011> to get some > idea of the international backing for knowledge-driven architecture. > Without > these kind of model-driven architectures, semantic interoperability will > remain a dream, as will any serious industry around decision support, > business intelligence and data-based medical research, and any other > application wanting to use computable patient-centred health data. Because > of the time it has taken to mature the openEHR - and other related, and > even > competing - health computing platforms, solutions based on these platforms > are only just starting to make serious inroads. > > I have no problem with your view of openEHR in terms of limited penetration > (today), but what I think would be a little more positive would be for the > open source sector to actually take part in solving interoperability, > rather > than continuing to add to the problem. There are real synergies to be > explored. Much of the new work in openEHR and related architectures is > coming out open source. It would be great if existing open source health > application developers were to get involved - e.g. by working with us and > others (e.g. HL7 HSSP, IHE etc) on e-health service > models<http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/openEHR+Service+Model>. We > on the other hand have a lot to learn about e-health applications. > > Finally, I would guess that e-health is about 10% of the way to a truly > useful full-featured intelligent and open e-health platform of the future. > That means that books like yours should potentially be educating readers on > the likely future, not the status quo. > > - thomas > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/private/openehr-technical/attachments/2 > 0120220/a393d2ed/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:49:34 +1030 > From: Heath Frankel <heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com> > Subject: RE: openEHR - Persistence of Data > To: For openEHR technical discussions <openehr-technical at openehr.org> > Message-ID: > <CACOAxbA7mRUQf5Qk1xgoEY4g-v+=RUEE42J+-FECeFOZjjxDQA at mail.gmail.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Hi Koray, > Yes there was a honours thesis done on using an object database to store > and query openEHR data. It was intended to compare our indexed XML blob > approach but from memory it ended up comparing two commercial object > databases. > I will have to ask Chunlan if the paper is publicly available. > > Heath. > On 20/02/2012 8:54 PM, "Koray Atalag" <k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > > > I remember a Honours or Master?s thesis on openEHR persistence...I think > > Heath was involved. Heath is that publicly available?**** > > > > ** ** > > > > Cheers,**** > > > > ** ** > > > > -koray**** > > > > ** ** > > > > *From:* openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto: > > openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] *On Behalf Of *M?rcio Costa > > *Sent:* Saturday, 18 February 2012 10:36 a.m. > > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions > > *Subject:* Re: openEHR - Persistence of Data**** > > > > ** ** > > > > Do Anyone knows about some papers of persistent storing? **** > > > > ** ** > > > > att,**** > > > > > > *M?rcio Costa* > > B.Sc. in Computer Science @ Cin/UFPE > > M.Sc. Candidate in Computer Science @ CIn/UFPE > > MSN: mdckoury at gmail.com > > > > > > **** > > > > Em 17 de fevereiro de 2012 17:59, M?rcio Costa <mdckoury at gmail.com> > > escreveu:**** > > > > i would like to thank everyone for the information and attention. **** > > > > ** ** > > > > i'm trying to do a review about this subject to start my research, but i > > will do something to analyse the best way to model and persist this kind > of > > data.**** > > > > ** ** > > > > Best Regards,**** > > > > ** ** > > > > *M?rcio Costa* > > B.Sc. in Computer Science @ Cin/UFPE > > M.Sc. Candidate in Computer Science @ CIn/UFPE > > MSN: mdckoury at gmail.com > > > > > > **** > > > > 2012/2/17 pablo pazos <pazospablo at hotmail.com>**** > > > > Hi Erik, you are right, the uglyness depends on 1. the queries you want > to > > execute and 2. the programmer background.**** > > > > ** ** > > > > For 1. the "common" queries like get all records for this patient in this > > time window, are not that ugly, but more complex queries could be.**** > > > > For 2. for a XML guy, writing xPath based queries is ok, but for a SQL is > > a pain in the a55. > > > > :D > > > > I'm hoping to see that paper on AQL->xQuery soon!**** > > > > ** ** > > > > I totally agree that inside the system maybe you don't need a complete RM > > structure to handle data instances, but for the service layer (sharing > > information with other systems) this is a must.**** > > > > > > > > -- > > 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: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:21:29 +0100 > > > Subject: Re: openEHR - Persistence of Data > > > From: erik.sundvall at liu.se > > > To: openehr-technical at openehr.org**** > > > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 23:26, pablo pazos <pazospablo at hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Other models I didn't try yet are Object Oriented DBs and > > > > Document Oriented DBs (XML, JSON, ...) [6]. I think DODBs > > > > are a good option, fast for store highly hierarchical structures, > > > > but you need to write some ugly queries if you want your data back :D > > > > > > Not necessarily that ugly... we curently auto-convert AQL to XQuery > > > and execute towards an XML database. Those queries are very readable. > > > > > > Then the question is what kind of client system you are aiming at. For > > > some use cases you don't really need to map things back to > > > openEHR-RM-objects, in web browser based GUIs for example you can keep > > > treating the data as documents, document fragments, fragment lists > > > etc. and use DOM manipulations, jQuery or similar approaches for most > > > data manipulation needs. > > > > > > Good luck with your work M?rcio and please keep us informed! > > > > > > 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**** > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > openEHR-technical mailing list > > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical**** > > > > ** ** > > > > ** ** > > > > ** ** > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > > signature database 6898 (20120220) __________**** > > > > ** ** > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.**** > > > > ** ** > > > > http://www.eset.com**** > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > > signature database 6898 (20120220) __________ > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > > > http://www.eset.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > openEHR-technical mailing list > > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/private/openehr-technical/attachments/2 > 0120221/10b0ee3a/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > > End of openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 67, Issue 34 > ************************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120220/5e5d3bc2/attachment.html>
