On 13-11-17 17:09, Thomas Beale wrote:
I agree, that's an interesting idea. I have not put any thought into
it, but it's worth investigating. But we need to be clear on what
problem is being solved here. Is it improvements in medico-legal
standard of proof, or something else? What is the economic driver, and
why are the current mechanisms (signing and versioning) not good enough?
The advantage in legal context is that independent of machines can be
proven what has happened. A nurse writes down in her app that a patient
is doing bad, a doctor sees the messages, having it on the screen is
also an action, and then going to visit the patient, action...
It gets more interesting when more systems are involved because they
together register a chain of events, and because of the blockchain they
can relate to each other.
- thomas
On 13/11/2017 14:02, Bert Verhees wrote:
Thomas, one more remark, I remember the task-planning-specification
where you have been working on, and on which you planning to give a
presentation in London soon.
It is there where I thought there could be an excellent example of
implementation of blockchain. Because it is about a processing model,
state-machine, decisions, how good would it be for a performer to be
able to prove: a decision taken on information or having taken a
step, or other cicrumstances, by implementing the blockchain mechanism?
That would just be a classical use case for which blockchain was
invented.
_______________________________________________
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
