Re: Advantage of ISO

[Thomas Beale]

Bert,

my comments relate to software only, contributed by companies and other 
organisations at their own development expense.


It has nothing to do with specifications, nor specification-related 
computational artefacts (grammars, XSDs, and the like). These are all 
issued by the foundation, copyrighted to the foundation and will always 
be free to use under all circumstances, as has always been the case for 
15 years. This will never change.


- thomas

On 09/09/2015 17:24, Bert Verhees wrote:

On 09-09-15 04:20, Thomas Beale wrote:

On 08/09/2015 21:55, Erik Sundvall wrote:

Hi!

ND on the specification documents is not a big or urgent problem if 
there are Apace 2 licenced computable artifacts 
like UML-files/descriptions of all classes, ADL/AQL grammars, 
openEHR term lists/vocabularies and other things needed for building 
actual systems. I believe that is already the case (or at least the 
intention).




we probably need to perform an audit on all of these artefacts to 
check the licences. One thing we need to change is to allow more 
types of software licence, e.g. AGPL. Large companies and huge health 
institutions like the NHS simply cannot expect to be able to use 
everything for free when it costs quite serious investment on the 
part of typically small companies or research groups in academic 
settings. They need to consider contributing resources. Viral 
licences need to be allowed to enable conditional use; if funding is 
made available, such licences can be converted to other types of licence.


We must not forget, this discussion (the ND-part) is in the context of 
the specifications, and specifications is NOT software.
If you are going to ask money for the specifications, or 
membership-construction, OpenEHR is not anymore open.


And most important, you cannot close down this version the OpenEHR 
specs, because you have given it to the world with the right to share it.
It will always compete with your paid version on the market. So the 
AOM-part and other more technical parts will be stable and for free 
for coming decade.


The Reference Model can change version and in a new version close down 
the free distribution, but many can write a Reference Model.

I, personally, consider the Reference Model as least innovative.
We have so many Reference Models, Tim Cook created one, Grahame Grieve 
created one, the guys from 13606 created one.

And don't forget the current version of the Reference Model.
Even in the Netherlands there are a few as datamodel which can easily 
be converted to a two level Reference Model.


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

[Bert Verhees]

On 09-09-15 10:24, Thomas Beale wrote:

I hope this is clearer.

- thomas

It sure is.
I totally agree.

Bert


___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

[Bert Verhees]

On 09-09-15 04:20, Thomas Beale wrote:

On 08/09/2015 21:55, Erik Sundvall wrote:

Hi!

ND on the specification documents is not a big or urgent problem if 
there are Apace 2 licenced computable artifacts 
like UML-files/descriptions of all classes, ADL/AQL grammars, openEHR 
term lists/vocabularies and other things needed for building actual 
systems. I believe that is already the case (or at least the intention).




we probably need to perform an audit on all of these artefacts to 
check the licences. One thing we need to change is to allow more types 
of software licence, e.g. AGPL. Large companies and huge health 
institutions like the NHS simply cannot expect to be able to use 
everything for free when it costs quite serious investment on the part 
of typically small companies or research groups in academic settings. 
They need to consider contributing resources. Viral licences need to 
be allowed to enable conditional use; if funding is made available, 
such licences can be converted to other types of licence.


We must not forget, this discussion (the ND-part) is in the context of 
the specifications, and specifications is NOT software.
If you are going to ask money for the specifications, or 
membership-construction, OpenEHR is not anymore open.


And most important, you cannot close down this version the OpenEHR 
specs, because you have given it to the world with the right to share it.
It will always compete with your paid version on the market. So the 
AOM-part and other more technical parts will be stable and for free for 
coming decade.


The Reference Model can change version and in a new version close down 
the free distribution, but many can write a Reference Model.

I, personally, consider the Reference Model as least innovative.
We have so many Reference Models, Tim Cook created one, Grahame Grieve 
created one, the guys from 13606 created one.

And don't forget the current version of the Reference Model.
Even in the Netherlands there are a few as datamodel which can easily be 
converted to a two level Reference Model.


Bert
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

Re: Advantage of ISO

[Thomas Beale]

Bert,

I fail to see the origin of any ambiguity from within openEHR. The 
specifications have been free and open for 15 years, since 2000 (or soon 
thereafter, since some were issued around 2002/2003 for the first time, 
and some later). This has always been clearly stated even in the old 
copyright notice, as well as in the current CC licence.


All of this is verifiable simply by going to the website and viewing the 
specifications, and that has always been the case, again, since the 
beginning.


Therefore, any 'ambiguity' on this subject has been manufactured from 
(very great) ignorance or else malice, for the agendas of other parties. 
There's probably not much we can do about this other than rely on the 
intelligence of potential user organisations to ignore nonsense when it 
surfaces, and get on with doing real work. If they can't even be 
bothered to inspect the website and primary materials, they probably are 
not serious about e-health.


Secondly, Ocean Informatics has nothing specific to do with any of this. 
It does not have any IP that is special in any way. There are a number 
of vendor companies that have become Industry Partners, as can be seen 
on the openEHR.org home page. Most of these companies have contributed 
some IP, which can be seen either at openEHR@Github 
or else in other locations that are 
generally well-signed from the website.


It is not up to Ocean to determine anything to do with openEHR software 
or other IP status - that is done by the openEHR Management board 
, and/or Board of 
Governors , in cases 
where legal advice may be required.


I hope this is clearer.

- thomas

On 09/09/2015 18:09, Bert Verhees wrote:

On 09-09-15 09:55, Thomas Beale wrote:


Bert,

my comments relate to software only, contributed by companies and 
other organisations at their own development expense.


It has nothing to do with specifications, nor specification-related 
computational artefacts (grammars, XSDs, and the like). These are all 
issued by the foundation, copyrighted to the foundation and will 
always be free to use under all circumstances, as has always been the 
case for 15 years. This will never change.


Good to be crystal clear about this, with all the FUDders waiting for 
their chances.
Remember, they talk with not so well informed people (govt. 
bureaucrats, for example) regarding licensing issues.



;-)


There are three kind of deliverables coming from OpenEHR (and Ocean)
1) The specs  (NOT DERIVABLE)
2) The CKM archetypes (archetypes can be seen as software, (say some)) 
(SHARE ALIKE)

3) What anyone recognizes as software (For Ocean to decide)


For me only the first part is important, but others find part 2 and/or 
3 also very important, for good reasons.



What Ocean does should IMHO be anyway outside the scope of this 
discussion.


I hope they are going to charge lots of money for their software, the 
more the better.


Others are happy to fill the market-gap.



___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

RE: A question about the XML schema for version 1.4 archetypes

[Barnet David (HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE INFORMATION CENTRE)]

Hi Sebastian

I've tested a dozen or so archetypes from various CKMs, (some with  and 
some without), and all the XML downloads verify against the schema.

Thanks very much for the fix

Dave Barnet

From: Sebastian Garde [mailto:sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com]
Sent: Tue 08/09/2015 15:33
To: For openEHR technical discussions; Barnet David (HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE 
INFORMATION CENTRE)
Subject: Re: A question about the XML schema for version 1.4 archetypes


Warning: This message contains unverified links which may not be safe.  You 
should only click links if you are sure they are from a trusted source.

Hi Dave,

This has been fixed now - please have a look in case there are any problems.

Regards
Sebastian
On 03.09.2015 17:23, Sebastian Garde wrote:
Hi Dave and all,

This is the Java XML Serialiser generating XML from ADL on the fly in the CKM.

The archetype editor is doing it "your" way as well,  and I would assume this 
is correct.

I am a bit surprised this is happening, because I am pretty sure we looked in 
depth at any the differences a while ago, comparing XML in the Archetype Editor 
to XML generated in CKM by the Java XML Serialiser.

All new archetypes now receive a uid as part of their identification (including 
on other ckms), but before that pretty much nobody was using this field, so it 
may be that we just did not notice.

So, my understanding is that this is a bug in the Java XML serialisation.
If nobody contradicts me, I'll have a look and fix it in there.

Sebastian
On 03.09.2015 15:38, pazospa...@hotmail.com 
wrote:

Hi, the uid might be assigned by the archetype editor, before uploading the adl 
into the ckm, so this can be a bug on the AE.



Sent from my LG Mobile

-- Original message--

From: Barnet David (HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE ...

Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2015 10:31

To: 
openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org;

Subject:A question about the XML schema for version 1.4 archetypes
I have a question about the XML schema for archetypes based on ADL version 1.4

The set of schemas we are using to validate XML archetype exports are 1.0.1



ETC..

The issue we are getting is that sometimes an archetype has a tag. All those 
downloaded from our CKM (ckm.hscic.gov.uk) have this 
tag, but it's not present on all archetypes from other CKMs (which may be why 
this could be a new issue).

The schema is expecting the  tag before the  tag
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

However, in the XML instances, the  (if present) appears after the 
 tag
   
   
openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.newborn_birth_details.v0
   
   1..4
   7f716e0e-5fa8-4fec-942d-208764409b07

Further, changing the schema to change the expected tag order to match the XML 
instances shows up a further issue in that the format of  (according to 
the schema) should use a  tag like this
   
   
7f716e0e-5fa8-4fec-942d-208764409b07
   

Are we using an out of date set of schema? Or are these known issues? Have 
people corrected the schema for their own use (if so could I have a copy 
please)?

Kind regards

Dave Barnet
Interoperability Lead
Interoperability Specifications
Health & Social Care Information Centre
david.bar...@hscic.gov.uk
www.hscic.gov.uk




This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended 
recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take 
any action in reliance on its contents:
to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff 
in England and Scotland
NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information 
with NHSmail and GSi recipients
NHSmail provides an email address for your career in the NHS and can be 
accessed anywhere






___

openEHR-technical mailing list

openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org

http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org

--

Dr. Sebastian Garde
Dr. sc. hum., Dipl.-Inform. Med, FACHI
Ocean Informatics

Skype: