openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 67, Issue 34
Hi Tim HL7 Twittered about making things more openly available the other daydoes anyone have the link? Cheers, Sam -Original Message- From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical- bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Timothy Cook Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 4:44 AM To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 67, Issue 34 How can anyone say that HL7 is open in any fashion? You are not free to distribute it outside of your organization except in small parts so that the specifications cannot reproduced. See the paragraph immediately preceding the one previously quoted here: HL7 CORPORATE/ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS are authorized to: reproduce and distribute Material on an internal basis solely for use within their organization; reproduce and distribute excerpts of Material (not entire domains or chapters) to any customers of a product or service implementing those Material, provided that the HL7 Access database may not be included, either in whole or in part, in any product intended for direct or indirect commercial resale; use excerpts of Material to create customized implementation guides; and use Material in the development of software applications and messaging systems for direct use or distribution without additional licensing fees. There is NOTHING open about this, fee paid or not. --Tim On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 17:55, Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote: On 20/02/2012 22:34, William Goossen wrote: Hi Heath, Thomas, My experience is that HL7 v3 is an open standard and OpenEHR is proprietary (as owned by the OpenEHR foundation holding the copyrights, albeit I understand that work is underway to sort that out). Correction: HL7 is open, although requires a small fee for use; openEHR is an open and free specification. Neither are proprietary; proprietary essentially means 'not openly published and usable'. That does not apply to either HL7 or openEHR. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- Timothy Cook, MSc LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook Skype ID == timothy.cook Academic.Edu Profile: http://uff.academia.edu/TimothyCook ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 67, Issue 34
Hi Sam, You might have been thinking about this: www.healthcareitnews.com/news/hl7-makes-ip-freely-available-ehrs and https://www.hl7.org/store/index.cfm?item=DAMFP Klaus _ Klaus D Veil Adj. Assoc. Professor - University of Western Sydney Vice-President - Australasian College of Health Informatics CoChair - Standards Australia IT014-06 IT014-06-03 Past Chair - HL7 Australia Certified V2.4, V2.5 V2.6 Specialist - HL7 Intl. (USA) Principal - HL7 Systems Services, Sydney, Australia Phone: +61 412 746 457 Skype: KlausDVeil Fax: +61 2 9475 0303e-Mail: Klaus at Veil.net.au Profile: www.Veil.net.au http://www.veil.net.au/ -Original Message- From: openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Sam Heard Sent: Monday, 19 March 2012 09:34 To: 'For openEHR technical discussions' Subject: RE: openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 67, Issue 34 Hi Tim HL7 Twittered about making things more openly available the other daydoes anyone have the link? Cheers, Sam -Original Message- From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical- bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Timothy Cook Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 4:44 AM To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 67, Issue 34 How can anyone say that HL7 is open in any fashion? You are not free to distribute it outside of your organization except in small parts so that the specifications cannot reproduced. See the paragraph immediately preceding the one previously quoted here: HL7 CORPORATE/ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS are authorized to: reproduce and distribute Material on an internal basis solely for use within their organization; reproduce and distribute excerpts of Material (not entire domains or chapters) to any customers of a product or service implementing those Material, provided that the HL7 Access database may not be included, either in whole or in part, in any product intended for direct or indirect commercial resale; use excerpts of Material to create customized implementation guides; and use Material in the development of software applications and messaging systems for direct use or distribution without additional licensing fees. There is NOTHING open about this, fee paid or not. --Tim On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 17:55, Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote: On 20/02/2012 22:34, William Goossen wrote: Hi Heath, Thomas, My experience is that HL7 v3 is an open standard and OpenEHR is proprietary (as owned by the OpenEHR foundation holding the copyrights, albeit I understand that work is underway to sort that out). Correction: HL7 is open, although requires a small fee for use; openEHR is an open and free specification. Neither are proprietary; proprietary essentially means 'not openly published and usable'. That does not apply to either HL7 or openEHR. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- Timothy Cook, MSc LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook Skype ID == timothy.cook Academic.Edu Profile: http://uff.academia.edu/TimothyCook ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.or g -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120319/af4dbdcc/attachment-0001.html
openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 67, Issue 34
On 20/02/2012 22:34, William Goossen wrote: Hi Heath, Thomas, My experience is that HL7 v3 is an open standard and OpenEHR is proprietary (as owned by the OpenEHR foundation holding the copyrights, albeit I understand that work is underway to sort that out). * * Correction: HL7 is open, although requires a small fee for use; openEHR is an open and free specification. Neither are proprietary; proprietary essentially means 'not openly published and usable'. That does not apply to either HL7 or openEHR. - thomas -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120221/58db01b6/attachment.html
openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 67, Issue 34
Ar this stage membership is open to anyone for both HL7 and OpenEHR. Hence they are both open. Difference is that HL7 is an SDO and OpenEHR a community. But yes both have their copyright approaches. I have not gone through each of them in detail. But as a user of both platforms it does not make a difference, in contrast to what Heath said. William -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120221/be2a90b6/attachment.html
openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 67, Issue 34
Hi William, I think you may have misread who wrote what. The assertion that HL7 is proprietary was made by Fred Trotter, not by Heath. Peter fred trotter wrote: ... Having said that, HL7 RIM is a proprietary ontology/model and OpenEHR, is not. William Goossen wrote: Ar this stage membership is open to anyone for both HL7 and OpenEHR. Hence they are both open. Difference is that HL7 is an SDO and OpenEHR a community. But yes both have their copyright approaches. I have not gone through each of them in detail. But as a user of both platforms it does not make a difference, in contrast to what Heath said.
openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 67, Issue 34
Hi Heath, Thomas, My experience is that HL7 v3 is an open standard and OpenEHR is proprietary (as owned by the OpenEHR foundation holding the copyrights, albeit I understand that work is underway to sort that out). William -Original Message- From: openehr-technical-boun...@openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of openehr-technical-request at openehr.org Sent: maandag 20 februari 2012 23:25 To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 67, Issue 34 Send openEHR-technical mailing list submissions to openehr-technical at openehr.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to openehr-technical-request at openehr.org You can reach the person managing the list at openehr-technical-owner at openehr.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of openEHR-technical digest... Today's Topics: 1. RE: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata (Koray Atalag) 2. RE: openEHR - Persistence of Data (Heath Frankel) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:58:33 + From: Koray Atalag k.ata...@auckland.ac.nz Subject: RE: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata To: For openEHR technical discussions openehr-technical at openehr.org Message-ID: B1CE708E5C614F4BB990E32CC5F03AD41F690A10 at uxcn10-1.UoA.auckland.ac.nz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Fred, Apropos to Tom I'd say openEHR is also equally to do with software maintainability; thanks to the dual or multi-level modelling and model driven development. This is my main research area as well as open source software. I agree with Tom's comments that being open source by itself is not enough (for any software quality aspect I believe) and must be accompanied with open standards. If I was asked to explain openEHR to my mother I'd probably say: 'it is about getting information right in healthcare'. I usually find this statement as the starting point when talking to other audiences such as computer scientists and developers. Perhaps you'll find useful as well. Cheers, -koray From: openehr-technical-boun...@openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of fred trotter Sent: Saturday, 18 February 2012 1:27 p.m. To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata Thomas, This is quit usable critique and I will certainly draw from it in future revisions of the work. You make the argument that OpenEHR is primarily for interoperability, and I can accept that fundamental argument. It is difficult to swallow however, when I hear the HL7 v3 wonks talking about how HL7 RIM is the solution to semantic interoperability. Are they confused or are you confused, because you are saying basically the same thing. From my perspective as in implementer it looks awefully like a blueray vs HDDVD war and it looks like OpenEHR is losing. But at the same time I keep hearing that HL7 RIM is compatible with and might be merged with HL7 RIM. Very confusing, and I have yet to see something compelling that can be done in OpenEHR that cannot be done with HL7 RIM. Having said that, HL7 RIM is a proprietary ontology/model and OpenEHR, is not. That gives OpenEHR some usefulness even as an alternative model. Is that where I should see the value? Here is an information model that delivers semantic interoperability but is not proprietary? On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.commailto:thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote: Hi Fred, I think you are missing the point. The key thing we are working on in openEHR is interoperability, not open source. Open source health applications have historically not made any difference to interoperability, intelligent computing or anything else - they are the same as closed source systems that don't do any of these things. This is not to say that they aren't better quality software / solutions in other ways - some are very nice. But in general they have the same proprietary data formats and service interfaces as commercial solutions (making such definitions openly available doesn't change anything). Solving interoperability and intelligence in e-health (as for other domains) is very hard indeed, and solutions based on simple approaches only have marginal benefit. What matters to clinical people and actual health delivery is interoperability, regardless of closed or open source: open standardised (= widely agreed) information models, service interfaces and knowledge formalisms. Of course open source, done the right way does have a lot to offer, and can make the economics better, but it doesn't specifically address
openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 67, Issue 34
Hi William, You've got me confused a bit. From the http://www.hl7.org/legal/ippolicy.cfm : ...* * *This authorization is provided only during the years when the appropriate HL7 Organizational Membership dues are paid, and if and only if:* 1. *HL7 is clearly identified as publisher and holder of the copyright; and,* So if openEHR is proprietary because the foundation is holding the copyright, is not HL7 the same according to the statement above? Kind regards Seref On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:34 PM, William Goossen wgoossen at results4care.nlwrote: Hi Heath, Thomas, My experience is that HL7 v3 is an open standard and OpenEHR is proprietary (as owned by the OpenEHR foundation holding the copyrights, albeit I understand that work is underway to sort that out). William -Original Message- From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of openehr-technical-request at openehr.org Sent: maandag 20 februari 2012 23:25 To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 67, Issue 34 Send openEHR-technical mailing list submissions to openehr-technical at openehr.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to openehr-technical-request at openehr.org You can reach the person managing the list at openehr-technical-owner at openehr.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of openEHR-technical digest... Today's Topics: 1. RE: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata (Koray Atalag) 2. RE: openEHR - Persistence of Data (Heath Frankel) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:58:33 + From: Koray Atalag k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz Subject: RE: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata To: For openEHR technical discussions openehr-technical at openehr.org Message-ID: B1CE708E5C614F4BB990E32CC5F03AD41F690A10 at uxcn10-1.UoA.auckland.ac.nz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Fred, Apropos to Tom I'd say openEHR is also equally to do with software maintainability; thanks to the dual or multi-level modelling and model driven development. This is my main research area as well as open source software. I agree with Tom's comments that being open source by itself is not enough (for any software quality aspect I believe) and must be accompanied with open standards. If I was asked to explain openEHR to my mother I'd probably say: 'it is about getting information right in healthcare'. I usually find this statement as the starting point when talking to other audiences such as computer scientists and developers. Perhaps you'll find useful as well. Cheers, -koray From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of fred trotter Sent: Saturday, 18 February 2012 1:27 p.m. To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: Meaningful Use and Beyond - O'Reilly press - errata Thomas, This is quit usable critique and I will certainly draw from it in future revisions of the work. You make the argument that OpenEHR is primarily for interoperability, and I can accept that fundamental argument. It is difficult to swallow however, when I hear the HL7 v3 wonks talking about how HL7 RIM is the solution to semantic interoperability. Are they confused or are you confused, because you are saying basically the same thing. From my perspective as in implementer it looks awefully like a blueray vs HDDVD war and it looks like OpenEHR is losing. But at the same time I keep hearing that HL7 RIM is compatible with and might be merged with HL7 RIM. Very confusing, and I have yet to see something compelling that can be done in OpenEHR that cannot be done with HL7 RIM. Having said that, HL7 RIM is a proprietary ontology/model and OpenEHR, is not. That gives OpenEHR some usefulness even as an alternative model. Is that where I should see the value? Here is an information model that delivers semantic interoperability but is not proprietary? On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.commailto: thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com wrote: Hi Fred, I think you are missing the point. The key thing we are working on in openEHR is interoperability, not open source. Open source health applications have historically not made any difference to interoperability, intelligent computing or anything else - they are the same as closed source systems that don't do any of these things. This is not to say that they aren't better quality software / solutions in other ways - some are very nice. But in general they have the same proprietary data
