If that's the case then we cannot assume any other attribute to be in the repository.
2014-11-13 10:52 GMT+01:00 Ian McNicoll <ian at mcmi.co.uk>: > Hi Diego, > > I did wonder about the idea of repository-level attribution but in > practice the archetypes will often be disconnected and shared in local > repositories etc, so I suspect we are stuck with attribution for each > archetype. > > I have looked at Thomas's proposal on the wiki and now think that is > probably the best answer. It keeps 'use' and 'references' for their > original intention and might make it easier to automate the import of > boilerplate term of use etc. e.g. The repository manager could check > for SNOMED CT and LOINC bindings on upload and offer to add the > requisite text. > > Ian > > > Dr Ian McNicoll > mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 > office +44 (0)1536 414994 > skype: ianmcnicoll > email: ian at freshehr.com > twitter: @ianmcnicoll > > Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics > Director, openEHR Foundation > Director, HANDIHealth CIC > Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL > > > On 13 November 2014 09:44, Diego Bosc? <yampeku at gmail.com> wrote: >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
