If the 3rd party attribution will be always the same, should not be stored in the repository or make that it is somewhat assumed for archetypes in a given domain instead of repeating it on each archetype? And as David says, a new metadata attribute was included to deal with this if still it is needed to be put (the barthel scale use case)
2014-11-13 10:36 GMT+01:00 Ian McNicoll <ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com>: > So we all would probably benefit from creating some copy and paste > examples for common 3rd party attribution that can be easily > incorporated into archetypes / resources. > > 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 > Director openEHR Foundation www.openehr.org/knowledge > Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL > SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland > BCS Primary Health Care www.phcsg.org > > > On 13 November 2014 09:24, Grahame Grieve > <grahame at healthintersections.com.au> wrote: >> you do not need to pay, but the licensing requirements are quite specific >> about what kind of attribution is required. >> >> Grahame >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Stefan Sauermann >> <sauermann at technikum-wien.at> wrote: >>> >>> Hello! >>> We are using LOINC in Austria for coding lab results on a national scale. >>> As far as I know nobody needs to pay anything to Regenstrief to do so. >>> >>> I am not aware of any "must mention Regenstrief" requirements, but I may >>> miss something. >>> Greetings from Vienna, >>> Stefan >>> >>> Stefan Sauermann >>> >>> Program Director >>> Biomedical Engineering Sciences (Master) >>> >>> University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien >>> Hoechstaedtplatz 5, 1200 Vienna, Austria >>> P: +43 1 333 40 77 - 988 >>> M: +43 664 6192555 >>> E: stefan.sauermann at technikum-wien.at >>> >>> I: www.technikum-wien.at/mbe >>> I: www.technikum-wien.at/ibmt >>> I: www.healthy-interoperability.at >>> >>> Am 13.11.2014 10:07, schrieb Grahame Grieve: >>> >>> my advice from LOINC/regenstrief is that it does apply >>> >>> Grahame >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Thomas Beale >>> <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Something that has become clear in CIMI, and will affect openEHR, 13606 >>>> and most likely any archetype developer is that acknowledgements of 3rd >>>> party copyrights and trademarks need to be made. The most obvious common >>>> one >>>> is likely to be for SNOMED CT codes in archetype bindings (Stan Huff at >>>> Intermountain is still working on whether such acknowledgements are needed >>>> for LOINC codes). However, it could be for anything, e.g. rights to use a >>>> scale like Barthel or Waterlow. >>>> >>>> At the moment there is no dedicated place in the model for this >>>> particular meta-data. It could just go in 'other_details' but I suspect >>>> that >>>> we need to be more precise than that. Consider for example, the openEHR >>>> Barthel scale archetype - it currently carries this text in the 'Use' >>>> section: >>>> >>>> Note: >>>> The Maryland State Medical Society holds the copyright for the Barthel >>>> Index. It may be used freely for non-commercial purposes with the >>>> following >>>> citation: >>>> Mahoney FI, Barthel D. ?Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index.? >>>> Maryland State Med Journal 1965;14:56-61. Used with permission. >>>> >>>> Permission is required to modify the Barthel Index or to use it for >>>> commercial purposes. >>>> >>>> This seems less than optimal, and is certainly not going to be reliably >>>> tool-separable from the main 'Use' content, since the word 'Note:' and the >>>> placement of this text are purely local choices. >>>> >>>> There is another issue here. The acknowledgement text actually included >>>> in the archetype needs to be minimal, and as far as legally possible not >>>> contain volatile elements that can change. Therefore, I think the general >>>> approach needs to be as is typically done with open source licences: not >>>> including the whole text, but including a reliable URL to the licence text >>>> either from the issuer (e.g. Creative Commons CC-BY page) or an agreement >>>> between the publisher and the licensor (e.g. between IHTSDO and CIMI for >>>> the >>>> use of SNOMED CT, and details of that use). >>>> >>>> I have updated the meta-data page on the wiki to indicate what I think is >>>> the requirement - see end of the main table. >>>> >>>> I am increasingly of the feeling that we need to act on this soon. >>>> >>>> - thomas >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> openEHR-clinical mailing list >>>> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org >>>> >>>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ----- >>> http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame at >>> healthintersections.com.au >>> / +61 411 867 065 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-clinical mailing list >>> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org >>> >>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ----- >> http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame at >> healthintersections.com.au / >> +61 411 867 065 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
