Hi Bert, I am certainly conscious of rumours. Some of these are due to general suspicion of open source licensing (and we can, I think, do more to alleviate this) but I am afraid some of anxiety is also caused by inaccurate and misleading information "openEHR is proprietary", regularly stated by a small number of individuals. I have had to ask for these to be corrected in a number of documents e.g. The SemanticHealthNet report where it was agreed by the principal authors, including Dipak, to be incorrect.
Since a significant number of companies and national organisations now make use of openEHR specifications or artefacts, these statements are being regarded as commercially hostile and the Foundation Boards both agree that legal action should now be taken where the authors are not prepared to promptly correct this inaccuracy. Leaving that aside. I am not convinced that ISO is a good home for openEHR. The specifications, development and revision process in ISO remain completely closed and quite at odds withopenEHR principles but I would be interested in other's views. I do think that some sort of association with a formal standards body would help alleviate some of the anxieties you mention (though these are imaginary) but I am not sure that ISO would be my first choice as it is currently constructed. I will raise the issue of whether to submit AOM2 with the Management Board. I am interested in other people's opinions. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: [email protected] twitter: @ianmcnicoll Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation [email protected] Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On 1 September 2015 at 16:48, Bert Verhees <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01-09-15 17:16, Bert Verhees wrote: > >> I have written a text (reply to Erik) in Stackoverflow, describing why it >> will be good for OpenEHR if AOM2.0 will become an ISO-standard in the >> context of ISO13606 renewal. >> >> >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32010122/are-the-hl7-fhir-hl7-cda-cimi-openehr-and-iso13606-approaches-aiming-to-solve/ >> > > I must add, it is not that I suspect anyone of having secret IP on OpenEHR. > I have no reason to suspect this. > > But I know people who have such suspicions, and having the AOM-part as an > ISO standard, surely will fight these rumors. > > I think it will help OpenEHR-implementations to have more customers. > > Bert > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
