Hi Diego, I am not quite sure what you meant by that?
Ian On 13 November 2014 09:56, Diego Bosc? <yampeku at gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- 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
