I understand, I take that as an authoritative answer to my question why
it hasn't been discussed in OpenEhr context.
The answer is also supported by Grahame. So what can I say ;-)
Thank you both for that.
I think that both of you will discuss within two years if and maybe how
to implement blockchain in OpenEhr and in FHIR.
In FHIR I think that discussion will come very sooner, because, it is
about messaging, and also, it describes technical layers.
In OpenEhr maybe in that discussion it will be rejected as something
because it will be regarded as not belonging to the non-technical
character of the Openehr-specification.
Best regards and thanks for the considerations
Bert
On 13-11-17 14:35, Thomas Beale wrote:
There may be applications such as 'digital notary' that blockchain
might be useful for, which is a trusted third party notary that
accumulates signed hashes of content transactions to the main EHR; if
it is thought that the EHR was hacked or integrity was in question,
the digital notary can be used to check. There was even a gNotary
project in gnu health years ago. But as Grahame says, protecting
against transaction errors / hacking isn't a burning problem to date.
However, if you want to accumulate the whole contents of transactions,
blockchain is unlikely to be be scalable.
Maybe this will change and blockchain will find use there.
- thomas
On 13/11/2017 13:15, Bert Verhees wrote:
On 13-11-17 14:02, Thomas Beale wrote:
...
What openEHR has as an underlying data management paradigm is
distributed version control - each EHR is like a little git repo.
This is no longer new or interesting (in fact, I was exposed to it
from 1988, so really not new), but it's just as applicable today as
it was then. Re-doing all that in blockchain seems sort of
pointless. Yes, health systems can be hacked, but mainly to break
privacy, not to fake transactions. Not what blockchain was designed
for (and it's more or less the opposite regarding privacy).
It is not about hacking why blockchain is interesting, although, that
can happen too. But it is about having trustworthy computing without
a trusted third party. Not only protecting against bad intentions but
also against errors, for example, system which not run synchronous or
have date/time(zone) not well configured. Not a trusted party ensures
delivery and time of delivery and contents of delivery, but
blockchain as a mechanism does.
I have given already a few examples.
Remember, computers make no errors, but people do, and it are people
which configure computers and use them, and their responsibility must
be able to transparently replayed afterwards.
_______________________________________________
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
