MEDINFO presentations.
Hi folks, I updated openEHR related presentations in MEDINFO2019 at Wikipage. There are so many interesting topics. https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/resources/pages/320634886/MEDINFO2019?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiOTdkY2U2ZGQwYjAzNDY0OThkMDYyMmUxYmNjYzMzNDQiLCJwIjoiYyJ9 If you find something wrong on this topic, please feel free to fix by yourself or let me know. I am looking forward to meet you soon in Lyon, and have much expectation for social events. Best regards, Shinji Kobayashi ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Re: Class of archetype 'Gender'
Hi Silje, Interesting idea. Gender dysphoria might be difficult to describe by diagnosis archetype. However, Cluster.gender(or sex) is handy to slot into demographic.person archetype. Shinji 2019年4月2日(火) 17:09 Bakke, Silje Ljosland via openEHR-clinical : > > Hi everyone, > > > > On revisiting the archetype CLUSTER.gender, we’ve discussed changing the > class of the archetype to EVALUATION. The reasoning behind this is that the > original use cases we thought would be relevant for this archetype, such as > nesting it within a lab result or an interpreter request, aren’t really > relevant anymore. We now believe the archetype is more useful in a persistent > composition. > > > > Are there any use cases we haven’t thought of, where it’s necessary to nest > this archetype within ENTRY archetypes? > > > > Kind regards, > Silje Ljosland Bakke > > > > Information Architect, RN > > Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes > Nasjonal IKT HF, Norway > > Tel. +47 40203298 > > Web: http://arketyper.no / Twitter: @arketyper_no > > > > ___ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Re: MEDINFO 2019, Lyon, France.
Hi everyone, This is a reminder. I heard there would be no extension for submission in this year. We have to urge to fix the proposal. If you are interested in submission proposal to the next MEDINFO, please let me know by e-mail or write to the wikipage bellow. https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/resources/pages/320634886/MEDINFO2019 Best regards, Shinji Kobayashi 2018年9月18日(火) 16:21 Heather Leslie : >> Hi everyone, > > > > I've just been talking with Silje about our plans for Medinfo from the > clinical modelling program. > > > > We'd like to share our current thinking and ideas for some broader openEHR > engagement. > > > > 3 Panels: > > Clinical modelling panel – focus on community engagement, modelling activity > and patterns > Technical/developers panel – focus on the technical and software aspects of > openEHR, AQL, GDL perhaps > Implementers panel – focus on the platform and experience from real-life > implementations > > There’s almost a tradition now that we’ve held a Clinical modelling and > Technical workshop at each Medinfo, but Medinfo’s working definition of a > workshop is that the presenters and the audience are meant to be equals and > there is a lot of audience participation. While we aspire to this, in reality > we really have experts presenting on their latest ideas/work and the audience > has variable opportunities to ask questions, which more fits with Medinfo’s > definition of a panel. So we are suggesting that we could run a suite of > complementary panels covering these 3 areas of openEHR activity. > @Shinji – I know you have already suggested the developer’s workshop – what > do you think of this as an alternative? > > Panel exploring how openEHR, FHIR & SNOMED work together – a cross SDO panel! > Clinical modelling tutorial – teaching participants how easy it is to learn > to build a template in half a day > Possible papers > > Medication family of archetypes – Ian, Hildi & Silje > Physical exam patterns – myself > > > > What do you think about these options? > > > > Who else has ideas or proposals? > > > > @Shinji has already set up a wiki page to help us coordinate our efforts - > https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/resources/pages/320634886/MEDINFO2019 > > > > Cheers > > > > Heather > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: openEHR-clinical On Behalf > Of Shinji KOBAYASHI > Sent: Monday, 20 August 2018 11:14 PM > To: For openEHR clinical discussions ; > For openEHR technical discussions > Subject: MEDINFO 2019, Lyon, France. > > > > Dear openEHR colleagues, > > > > In the next year, MEDINFO 2019 will be in Lyon, France, from 26th to 30th > August, 2019. > > The application for paper/poster/workshop/tutorial deadline is Nov 12. > > This is important, ONLY less than TWO MONTH left for the deadline. > > I already launched wiki page for MEDINFO 2019. > > https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/resources/pages/320634886/MEDINFO2019 > > If you have some plan for proposal related with openEHR, please give us > comments on the wiki or mail. > > I will propose the openEHR developers' workshop, again. > > AGAIN. Two month is not so long, rather short. > > > > Best regards, > > Shinji Kobayashi > > > > ___ > > openEHR-clinical mailing list > > openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > ___ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Re: MEDINFO 2019, Lyon, France.
Hi Heather, Thank you for reminding. Developers' workshop has been accepted from 2010. I agree to reorganise the contents about openEHR, but I guess "developers workshop' might be an insurance to pass reviews. Regards, Shinji Kobayashi 2018年9月18日(火) 16:21 Heather Leslie : > > Hi everyone, > > > > I've just been talking with Silje about our plans for Medinfo from the > clinical modelling program. > > > > We'd like to share our current thinking and ideas for some broader openEHR > engagement. > > > > 3 Panels: > > Clinical modelling panel – focus on community engagement, modelling activity > and patterns > Technical/developers panel – focus on the technical and software aspects of > openEHR, AQL, GDL perhaps > Implementers panel – focus on the platform and experience from real-life > implementations > > There’s almost a tradition now that we’ve held a Clinical modelling and > Technical workshop at each Medinfo, but Medinfo’s working definition of a > workshop is that the presenters and the audience are meant to be equals and > there is a lot of audience participation. While we aspire to this, in reality > we really have experts presenting on their latest ideas/work and the audience > has variable opportunities to ask questions, which more fits with Medinfo’s > definition of a panel. So we are suggesting that we could run a suite of > complementary panels covering these 3 areas of openEHR activity. > @Shinji – I know you have already suggested the developer’s workshop – what > do you think of this as an alternative? > > Panel exploring how openEHR, FHIR & SNOMED work together – a cross SDO panel! > Clinical modelling tutorial – teaching participants how easy it is to learn > to build a template in half a day > Possible papers > > Medication family of archetypes – Ian, Hildi & Silje > Physical exam patterns – myself > > > > What do you think about these options? > > > > Who else has ideas or proposals? > > > > @Shinji has already set up a wiki page to help us coordinate our efforts - > https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/resources/pages/320634886/MEDINFO2019 > > > > Cheers > > > > Heather > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: openEHR-clinical On Behalf > Of Shinji KOBAYASHI > Sent: Monday, 20 August 2018 11:14 PM > To: For openEHR clinical discussions ; > For openEHR technical discussions > Subject: MEDINFO 2019, Lyon, France. > > > > Dear openEHR colleagues, > > > > In the next year, MEDINFO 2019 will be in Lyon, France, from 26th to 30th > August, 2019. > > The application for paper/poster/workshop/tutorial deadline is Nov 12. > > This is important, ONLY less than TWO MONTH left for the deadline. > > I already launched wiki page for MEDINFO 2019. > > https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/resources/pages/320634886/MEDINFO2019 > > If you have some plan for proposal related with openEHR, please give us > comments on the wiki or mail. > > I will propose the openEHR developers' workshop, again. > > AGAIN. Two month is not so long, rather short. > > > > Best regards, > > Shinji Kobayashi > > > > ___ > > openEHR-clinical mailing list > > openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > ___ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
The first openEHR Asia Summit will be broadcast
Dear openEHR members, We will broadcast our openEHR Asia summit via our youtube channel from 10:00(JST), on the 28th July, 2018. We also welcome your comments via youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSyOlTp8pwY Programme: 10:00-10:15 Overview of openEHR movement and its localisation programme, Shinji Kobayashi(Japan), English session 10:15-10:45 openEHR Activity in Philippines, Ryan Banez(Philippines), English session 10:45-11:15 openEHR Activity in China, Xudong Lu(China), English session 11:15-11:45 openEHR Activity in Japan, Shinji Kobayashi(Japan), English session 11:45-12:00 General discussion, English session Best regards, Shinji Kobayashi ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Re: Machine Learning , some thoughts
Have anyone tried AQL adapter to pandas(python data analysis package for machine learning and statistics)? Shinji 2018-06-24 1:11 GMT+09:00 Bert Verhees : > Today my wife showed me Plantnet. > > https://plantnet.org/en/ > > It recognizes over 6000 plants from showing a flower or a leaf to your > phone. It has learned from machine-learning 700.000 pictures, and its > knowledge every day grows stronger, because it keeps on learning. And not > only the looks of a flower, but if it takes location (biotope) and date in > consideration, the certainty of recognizing gets stronger. > > Now you can imagine that it must be hard to recognize a plant from a > picture, without seeing the dimensions and showed in many possible angles, > in sunlight, cloudy or twilight. > > I was impressed how good it already was. Very advanced computer-knowledge > for free in the hands of the millions. > > There is also an app, I did not try it, which recognizes birds from audio. > You walk somewhere, hear a bird and want to know what kind of bird that is. > > The Berlin Natural History Museum leads a contest of 29 teams using 23 > different methods, with more than 82% good identifications for isolated bird > recordings, and more than 74% correct identifications for recordings mixing > several bird songs. > > > I often notice there is a trend in thinking that Machine Learning cannot be > much help, see how miserable google-translate translates. But then we for > get to see how much progress is made in other areas. > > Why am I writing this? Just to let you think about it. > > I wonder, Is OpenEhr usable for recognizing pattern in diseases over Machine > Learning, isn't behind every diagnosis a small cloud of archetypes which > forms a pattern? The features of recognizing/learning should not be found in > archetypes ID's, although, that can help a lot, but it should also look to > datatypes, their semantics and relations. > > Isn't OpenEhr better for recognizing pattern then whichever classic storage > structure, because the data-structures in OpenEhr are in semantic models, > this instead of some weird Codd-structure, which only has technical reasons > to exist. > > (Classic data stored in classic SQL schema's could be brought over to > archetyped structures, to make the base of machine-learning larger.) > > I think, when this is developed, we should be able to get to at least two > advantages. > > 1) We don't need CKM anymore, computers can understand archetypes, we don't > need to restrict ourselves to a limited number. We can also use archetypes > we do not know, and maybe we never know. Even, we wouldn't need archetypes > anymore, just as reminder/instruction. But the computer could create the > archetypes on the fly, when seeing the kind of data, the relations, the > diagnosis. > > 2) We could use the pattern to recognize healthcare situations, and maybe > treat/handle/cure on base of instructions coming from machine learning. > > Some thoughts when walking with my wife through the wonderful dunes, and its > special vegetation. Maybe I must write a blog about it. > > Have a nice day. > > Bert > > > > ___ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Re:
Congratulations! Opereffa, Seref once released, actually motivated to implement EHR. I appreciate his achievements and do think worth to get PhD. Regards, Shinji Kobayashi 2017-10-27 20:27 GMT+09:00 Ingram, David <d.ing...@ucl.ac.uk>: > An implementation focused evaluation of openEHR and its integration with > Bayesian Belief Networks for clinical decision support > > One of my most persistent PhD students, Seref Arikan, has published his > ground-breaking PhD thesis on the UCL online repository. > > A fuller announcement and link has been posted in the News Section of the > openEHR web site at: > > http://openehr.org/news_events/community_news > > We hope it will make a useful contribution to the ongoing international > advances in openEHR methodology. > > David Ingram > > Emeritus Professor of Health Informatics at UCL > > President and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the openEHR Foundation > > Trustee of the OpenEyes Foundation Charity > > Academic Board Member, the Planetearth Institute > > > > > ___ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openehr-techni...@lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
MEDINFO 2017, Xiamen, China
Dear openEHR mates, I just started the wiki page for upcoming MEDINFO 2017, Xiamen, China. https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2017%2C+Xiamen%2C+China If you are planning to submit / attend MEDINFO2017, please join our activities. We will make some events happen in MEDINFO as usual. * Developers workshop https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/display/resources/The+openEHR+Developers%27+workshop+2017 * Clinical modeling tutorial/workshop * Social meeting(yes, PARTY) We all welcome you in any ways. Moreover, I am planning an additional meeting in Kyoto, Japan, so I recommend you to transit in Japan on the way to Xiamen, China. Best regards, Shinji Kobayashi ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Re: Alive vs Dead
Hi Heather, I think alive is a state, death is an event. For oncology research, death is the most important event and we need relevant data. Once I gathered more than 50 patients records across about 5 hospitals in order to assess survival curve of leukemia treatment. I marked the date of death of each patients, and the last date that patients were confirmed to be alive(outpatient or inpatient) as ceased date of following. The death archetype seems helpful for such research. I think researcher would judge patient was alive if there are some records except death. Shinji KOBAYASHI 2016-01-05 15:43 GMT+09:00 Heather Leslie <heather.les...@oceaninformatics.com>: > Hi everyone, > > > > Seeking some advice please. > > > > In the context of a data registry or research database to record if a person > is alive or dead. Maybe there might be an alternative value of ‘unsure’ or > ‘indeterminate’ as well, I guess. > > > > I’m wondering if there is any naming convention for this data element – I’ve > come across ‘Alive status’ and ‘Vital status’ by googling and researching > all the places I can think of. Surprisingly there seems very little > available on the topic. SNOMED CT has alive and dead within the ‘General > clinical state finding (finding)’ hierarchy, although ‘deceased’ is part of > the ‘Finding related to general body function (finding)’ hierarchy. > > > > ‘Living status’ was proposed on a forum, but seems a bit weird if they are > dead. > > > > To add to the confusion, the requirements I am modelling uses the name > ‘Status’ (which needs some sort of archetype context) and the values are > ‘Alive’ and ‘Deceased’ which cross the SNOMED CT hierarchies! > > > > We could just be very pragmatic and label the data element ‘Alive vs Dead?’ > > > > Curious problem – I thought there would be more on the internets J. > > > > Any wisdom you can share would be most appreciated. > > > > And then I guess we need to think of related data elements that might be > grouped with this status. > > > > Regards > > > > Heather > > > > Dr Heather Leslie MBBS FRACGP FACHI > Consulting Lead, Ocean Informatics > > Clinical Programme Lead, openEHR Foundation > p: +61 418 966 670 skype: heatherleslie twitter: @omowizard > > > > > > > ___ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Re: Nation wide EHR project by openEHR/ISO13606 got fund in Japan.
Dear all, Thank you for kind and encouraging messages. The answers to the questions are bellow Q: Is it by Ruby on Rails. A: No, it is pity. The EHR will be built on Hadoop/Hbase. Q: Is there any article in English? A: No, I am sorry but there is not even Japanese article in detail, yet. In this October, JMNA will release a statement about this, and I will translate it to English. Q: Which model was adopted, openEHR, ISO 13606? A: The EHR will accepts various types of messages, such as HL7 v2, MML(Medical Markup Language), CDA, or even CSV. The message will be stored in openEHR or ISO13606 based archetypes, but about 40% of them are specialised for Japan. That was the most difficult part for me, which archetype should be specialised. ISO branding was so effective to convince our government. Q: Is'nt it too small budget for "Nation wide" EHR for Japan? A: Yes. absolutely. This budget was assigned for the first preliminary implementation to transform our legacy EHR to openEHR/ISO 13606 based EHR. We could save money,because we already had a development base and infrastructure of EHR. We have a plan to expand this EHR to nation wide in these years, but nobody knows how much budget would be assigned in the next year and later. Thanks again for all. It would be our pleasure that this information would encourage you. I wish all of your success on this openEHR road. We will talk about more on this in the next year, 'The openEHR unconference' https://openehr.doorkeeper.jp/events/32830 Kind regards, Shinji KOBAYASHI 2015-10-09 16:17 GMT+09:00 Vebjørn Arntzen <varnt...@ous-hf.no>: > Happy waves have arrived Norway, congratulations Shinji !! > > I'm joining Hugh here, please tell us more, or send us a link to a > description of the nationwide EHR project, if there is any available in > English. > > > > Surfing the waves > > Vebjørn > > > > *Fra:* openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] > *På vegne av* Hugh Leslie > *Sendt:* 8. oktober 2015 23:05 > *Til:* openehr-implement...@lists.openehr.org; > openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org; openehr-techni...@lists.openehr.org; > openehr-implement...@lists.openehr.org > *Emne:* Re: Nation wide EHR project by openEHR/ISO13606 got fund in Japan. > > > > Hi Shinji, > > Congratulations I think . > > I would like to understand more about this project. 5 million USD is a > very small budget for a national EHR. Is this just for the modelling? > > What is the purpose of the EHR? > > Regards Hugh > > Sent by Outlook <http://taps.io/outlookmobile> for Android > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 5:20 AM -0700, "Shinji KOBAYASHI" <sk...@moss.gr.jp> > wrote: > > Dear openEHR colleagues, > > We are happy to announce that Japan Medical Network Association(JMNA) was > designated to implement nation wide EHR with openEHR/ISO 13606 information > models in competitive bid by Japan agency for medical research and > development. > > To the next March, JMNA will implement EHR system with vendors in Japan by > this budget, about 5 million USD. > We, openEHR Japan, will contribute to make models for this EHR project. > > I wish this achievement would make happy waves to your countries. > > Best Regards, > > Shinji KOBAYASHI > > ___ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Nation wide EHR project by openEHR/ISO13606 got fund in Japan.
Dear openEHR colleagues, We are happy to announce that Japan Medical Network Association(JMNA) was designated to implement nation wide EHR with openEHR/ISO 13606 information models in competitive bid by Japan agency for medical research and development. To the next March, JMNA will implement EHR system with vendors in Japan by this budget, about 5 million USD. We, openEHR Japan, will contribute to make models for this EHR project. I wish this achievement would make happy waves to your countries. Best Regards, Shinji KOBAYASHI ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
MEDINFO program
Hello all, I re-ordered the presentations by time schedule in MEDINFO2015 in Sao Paolo, Brasil. https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2015+-+Sao+Paulo%2C+Brazil Please have a glance when you make your schedule in MEDINFO. Regards, Shinji KOBAYASHI ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Re: MEDINFO program
Dear Osama, I am sorry, there are no alternative for the all presentation of openEHR in MEDINFO. I think we have to prepare alternative education chances for all over the world. There are some education materials on the openEHR web site. http://openehr.org/resources/learning_centre I have not heard openEHR movement or meeting in the Middle East, but I am trying to propagate the openEHR movement in Japan and the East Asia. I wish my movement will wave to the whole Asia. Anyway, education programme is an emerging topic for us, we will talk about at this MEDINFO. -- Shinji KOBAYASHI The openEHR Japan representative, co-chair of localisation team. 2015-08-10 15:42 GMT+09:00 Osama Elhassan SeedAhmed Elhassan oeelhas...@dha.gov.ae: Dear Shinji, Is there any alternative for those who cannot make it to MEDINFO to benefit from the OpenEHR tutorial? Best regards, Osama *From:* openEHR-technical [mailto: openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] *On Behalf Of *Shinji KOBAYASHI *Sent:* Monday, August 10, 2015 10:40 AM *To:* For openEHR clinical discussions; For openEHR technical discussions; For openEHR implementation discussions *Subject:* MEDINFO program Hello all, I re-ordered the presentations by time schedule in MEDINFO2015 in Sao Paolo, Brasil. https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2015+-+Sao+Paulo%2C+Brazil Please have a glance when you make your schedule in MEDINFO. Regards, Shinji KOBAYASHI Vision A Healthy Happy and Safe Community مجتمع صحي آمن وسعيد الرؤية Mission Develop an integrated and sustainable healthcare system that ensures the delivery of comprehensive and excellent services to achieve the highest international levels of healthcare for individuals and society تطوير منظومة صحية متكاملة ومستدامة تضمن الشمولية والتميز لتحقيق أعلى المعايير العالمية لصحة الفرد والمجتمع الرسالة This transmittal is confidential. If you have received this transmittal in error, please notify us immediately by reply and immediately delete this message. DHA do not accept liability for any errors, omissions, information or viruses contained in the transmission of this message. ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openehr-techni...@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Re: MEDINFO program
Dear Osama, To publish the content of MEDINFO tutorial would need permission from MEDINFO. Shinji 2015-08-10 19:15 GMT+09:00 Osama Elhassan SeedAhmed Elhassan oeelhas...@dha.gov.ae: Dear Shinji, Is it possible to record the lectures and upload them on the openEHR website? Best regards, Osama *From:* openEHR-technical [mailto: openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] *On Behalf Of *Shinji KOBAYASHI *Sent:* Monday, August 10, 2015 2:12 PM *To:* For openEHR technical discussions *Cc:* For openEHR implementation discussions; For openEHR clinical discussions *Subject:* Re: MEDINFO program Dear Osama, I am sorry, there are no alternative for the all presentation of openEHR in MEDINFO. I think we have to prepare alternative education chances for all over the world. There are some education materials on the openEHR web site. http://openehr.org/resources/learning_centre I have not heard openEHR movement or meeting in the Middle East, but I am trying to propagate the openEHR movement in Japan and the East Asia. I wish my movement will wave to the whole Asia. Anyway, education programme is an emerging topic for us, we will talk about at this MEDINFO. -- Shinji KOBAYASHI The openEHR Japan representative, co-chair of localisation team. 2015-08-10 15:42 GMT+09:00 Osama Elhassan SeedAhmed Elhassan oeelhas...@dha.gov.ae: Dear Shinji, Is there any alternative for those who cannot make it to MEDINFO to benefit from the OpenEHR tutorial? Best regards, Osama *From:* openEHR-technical [mailto: openehr-technical-boun...@lists.openehr.org] *On Behalf Of *Shinji KOBAYASHI *Sent:* Monday, August 10, 2015 10:40 AM *To:* For openEHR clinical discussions; For openEHR technical discussions; For openEHR implementation discussions *Subject:* MEDINFO program Hello all, I re-ordered the presentations by time schedule in MEDINFO2015 in Sao Paolo, Brasil. https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2015+-+Sao+Paulo%2C+Brazil Please have a glance when you make your schedule in MEDINFO. Regards, Shinji KOBAYASHI Vision A Healthy Happy and Safe Community مجتمع صحي آمن وسعيد الرؤية Mission Develop an integrated and sustainable healthcare system that ensures the delivery of comprehensive and excellent services to achieve the highest international levels of healthcare for individuals and society تطوير منظومة صحية متكاملة ومستدامة تضمن الشمولية والتميز لتحقيق أعلى المعايير العالمية لصحة الفرد والمجتمع الرسالة This transmittal is confidential. If you have received this transmittal in error, please notify us immediately by reply and immediately delete this message. DHA do not accept liability for any errors, omissions, information or viruses contained in the transmission of this message. ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openehr-techni...@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org Vision A Healthy Happy and Safe Community مجتمع صحي آمن وسعيد الرؤية Mission Develop an integrated and sustainable healthcare system that ensures the delivery of comprehensive and excellent services to achieve the highest international levels of healthcare for individuals and society تطوير منظومة صحية متكاملة ومستدامة تضمن الشمولية والتميز لتحقيق أعلى المعايير العالمية لصحة الفرد والمجتمع الرسالة This transmittal is confidential. If you have received this transmittal in error, please notify us immediately by reply and immediately delete this message. DHA do not accept liability for any errors, omissions, information or viruses contained in the transmission of this message. ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openehr-techni...@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Re: openEHR @ StackExchange - getting close
I sent support request to openehr-jp mailing list. Shinji 2015-06-11 7:56 GMT+09:00 Thomas Beale thomas.be...@oceaninformatics.com: We are getting closer to the next step. We have 76 followers. We still need 17 questions with 10 votes. We have the requisite number of questions, it's just a case of people using their votes on them (don't worry if they don't really interest you, they are example questions - to get a stackexchange site, the community has to demonstrate interest). Many of the questions with 10 votes do have some votes, so we probably need a total of about 120 up-votes to get through this stage. I think each user gets 5 votes, so that's equivalent to 24 users. Remember, there is no value in up-voting a question that already has 10 or more votes. - thomas ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
[openEHR-announce] Extension of nominations 31 Jan 2015 - and join up now.
Thank you for gentle explanation, Ian. It is not clear for me yet that where we are and why we got there, but it seems quite obvious that we definitely need to go forward from here, I guess. To go forward, we have to organise a new board as an engine to drive our project as soon as possible. In short, we have to choose 2 individual representative from there four nominees until Jan 31. Shinji Kobayashi(me) Silje Ljosland Bakke Ian McNicoll Diego Bosca Thomas However, we do not know enough information to decide vote for each candidates. Yes I know me and other candidates, but we have to address our bio for decision makers like other elections. Here is my bio. Shinji KOBAYASHI, MD, PhD A senior lecturer of the EHR research unit, Kyoto University in Japan. I have trained as an clinical informatician and a clinical hematology/oncologist in these 20 years. * Achievement related with openEHR Projects: * Original papers KOBAYASHI S, TATSUKAWA A, Ruby implementation of openEHR specifications. JACIII 16(1): 42-47 (2012) * Conferences The openEHR Developers' Workshop. MedInfo 2013 Shinji Kobayashi, Eizen Kimura, Ken Ishihara: Creating Electronic Health Records within 15 Minutes with Ruby on Rails And ISO 13606/OpenEHR Standardized Clinical Models. MedInfo 2013 The openEHR Developers' Workshop. MedInfo 2010 * Activity related with openEHR. A lead of openEHR.jp(from 2007) The openEHR tutorial workshop in Manila(July 2013) More than twice a year we have made seminars around openEHR from 2008. A qualified member of openEHR localisation and web committee. * What I would do if I elected. I will launch NPO to facilitate openEHR works in Japan this early 2015. My motivation is to propagate and utilise openEHR specification like ground roots. Please ask me any question around me. Moreover, could you let us know a profile of each nominee? Shinji KOBAYASHI 2015-01-08 22:15 GMT+09:00 Ian McNicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com: Hi Heather, Vebj?rn, The nominations are for election to the new Management Board. None of the existing Board members will be automatically appointed. The Management Board is the group which is intended to direct Foundation affairs in a practical sense and in that role, all of the current Interim Board members are effectively 'standing down'. My understanding is that all of the Interim Board members will remain as 'Company Members' ( the legal 'owners' in UK Company law) until after the election. The role of Company Members is largely nominal i.e somewhat like Trustees / Guarantors in a charity to provide general oversight. The current proposals envisage a small Company Membership but we know that there is some debate in the community about whether every Individual and Industry member should automatically also be a legal'Company Member'. UK not-for-profit law recognises both approaches as being valid in different circumstances. The Interim Board felt that this discussion still needs to be had but that it was more important to get the new Management Board up and running first, particularly as the election process should give that group a stronger mandate and hopefully introduce fresh perspectives. I would regard the Management Board as holding the key power and responsibility and that this is a new entity. If current Interim Board members want to participate they should nominate like anyone else. Current Interim Board members will carry on in the short term as the legal 'Company Members' until that broader constitutional question is resolved. This will be an important discussion but is almost wholly about how we feel that the aims and philosophy of the Foundation are best protected, and not about running the Foundation per-se. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office +44 (0)1536 414 994 fax +44 (0)1536 516317 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK Director openEHR Foundation www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland BCS Primary Health Care www.phcsg.org On 8 January 2015 at 01:00, Heather Leslie heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com wrote: Thanks Ian, I would be interested to know who is remaining and who is standing down. Is that information available? I suspect that others in the community might like it too. It may influence decisions to nominate, or not. Regards Heather -Original Message- From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical- bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Ian McNicoll Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2015 7:32 PM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Cc: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: [openEHR-announce] Extension of nominations 31 Jan 2015 - and join up now. Hi Heather, The existing Board will be dissolved. The current interim Board members will remain as legal Company members/directors in line with UK
MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials
Hi colleagues, Can I finalize this developers' workshop proposal? https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4554784 Today is just before one week to the workshop deadline. Shinji KOBAYASHI 2014-12-18 20:52 GMT+09:00 Shinji KOBAYASHI skoba at moss.gr.jp: Hi colleagues, I am preparing to submit openEHR developers' workshop in this openEHR wiki page. https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4554784 If you got interested in participating this workshop, please add your name and brief summary(100-200 words) of your project on this wiki until Dec 31 2014. Anyone can join this workshop, if you have working on development around openEHR. Thank you for your concern about this workshop and contributing on wiki. I am looking forward to meeting you in Sao Paolo. Shinji KOBAYASHI 2014-10-30 17:21 GMT+09:00 Luis Marco luismarco at gmail.com: Hi Pablo, I will be in Medinfo therefore we can coordinate together the Spanish language resources ;-) Regards, Luis 2014-10-29 17:14 GMT+01:00 pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com: Hi Sam, I think right now the tutorial organization is happening in a very organic way: people are sharing they proposals so others can collaborate or detect possible overlaps. If we need a group to centralize coordination or communication with MedInfo organizers/chairs, I would propose the people interested no giving tutorials that is mentioned here: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2015+-+Sao+Paulo%2C+Brazil On my part, I don't have resources to have an stand (flight + hotel + conference fee is not cheap for us), but if I can help in any way, e.g. the community can use me as an spanish speaker interlocutor, I'll be more than happy to help and add my grain of sand. About training, I'm doing a small survey to see what people think about the proposals already discussed on the lists. My goal is to curate that and to reach a new level of discussions beyond ideas. I don't have Heather Grain's email, I'll gladly send her my little survey (Already sent to Heather L and Evelyn). Cheers, Pablo. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: sam.heard at openehrfoundation.org To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 04:50:10 + CC: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-implementers at lists.openehr.org Thanks Pablo Good feedback. It has been difficult to keep up with everything and I am in no way trying to impede any activity. I believe this is the first International Medinfo in a country where openEHR is up and running. My wish is to have a group that coordinate the effort. If you feel you have this in hand, lets make sure it is public and people know who to go to. Are there any plans to have an openEHR stand? This could enable a group of companies to promote what they are doing? Evelyn Hovenga and Heather Grain have been working with Heather Leslie regarding accrediting training?. have you talked to them? Do we need a group coordinating this? Cheers Sam Dr Sam Heard Chairman, openEHR Foundation From: pablo pazos Sent: ?Thursday?, ?23? ?October? ?2014 ?4?:?57? ?PM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Cc: For openEHR technical discussions, For openEHR implementation discussions Hi Sam, I think we are coordinating this already :) IMO that's the point of having the wiki pages and asking colleagues to add content, proposals and comments. I think the idea of a key note is great, and I want to collaborate in any way I can, but... as you an others may know, I asked several times for endorsement and support (not talking about money) from the foundation on the training side, to standardize the contents, to have a formal way of certification, and spread the standard, but the board went silent. I'm very pragmatic and I don't know why this is so difficult, for me this is treated in a very political way and should be something technical. With that being said, for me, talking about training under the foundation banner is at least weird. Maybe this is not a good place or time to mention this, but is how I honestly feel about the proposal. I long to see the work I try to do to create awareness about the standard to be supported by the foundation. To be honest, the only support I got is from the Chilean Association of Healthcare Informatics (ACHISA) with whom I'm very thankful because without them I wouldn't be able to create the first online course 100% about openEHR in spanish and provide it to more than 140 people from 15 countries. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: sam.heard at openehrfoundation.org To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 05:48:00 + CC
MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials
Hi colleagues, I am preparing to submit openEHR developers' workshop in this openEHR wiki page. https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4554784 If you got interested in participating this workshop, please add your name and brief summary(100-200 words) of your project on this wiki until Dec 31 2014. Anyone can join this workshop, if you have working on development around openEHR. Thank you for your concern about this workshop and contributing on wiki. I am looking forward to meeting you in Sao Paolo. Shinji KOBAYASHI 2014-10-30 17:21 GMT+09:00 Luis Marco luismarco at gmail.com: Hi Pablo, I will be in Medinfo therefore we can coordinate together the Spanish language resources ;-) Regards, Luis 2014-10-29 17:14 GMT+01:00 pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com: Hi Sam, I think right now the tutorial organization is happening in a very organic way: people are sharing they proposals so others can collaborate or detect possible overlaps. If we need a group to centralize coordination or communication with MedInfo organizers/chairs, I would propose the people interested no giving tutorials that is mentioned here: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2015+-+Sao+Paulo%2C+Brazil On my part, I don't have resources to have an stand (flight + hotel + conference fee is not cheap for us), but if I can help in any way, e.g. the community can use me as an spanish speaker interlocutor, I'll be more than happy to help and add my grain of sand. About training, I'm doing a small survey to see what people think about the proposals already discussed on the lists. My goal is to curate that and to reach a new level of discussions beyond ideas. I don't have Heather Grain's email, I'll gladly send her my little survey (Already sent to Heather L and Evelyn). Cheers, Pablo. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: sam.heard at openehrfoundation.org To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 04:50:10 + CC: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-implementers at lists.openehr.org Thanks Pablo Good feedback. It has been difficult to keep up with everything and I am in no way trying to impede any activity. I believe this is the first International Medinfo in a country where openEHR is up and running. My wish is to have a group that coordinate the effort. If you feel you have this in hand, lets make sure it is public and people know who to go to. Are there any plans to have an openEHR stand? This could enable a group of companies to promote what they are doing? Evelyn Hovenga and Heather Grain have been working with Heather Leslie regarding accrediting training?. have you talked to them? Do we need a group coordinating this? Cheers Sam Dr Sam Heard Chairman, openEHR Foundation From: pablo pazos Sent: ?Thursday?, ?23? ?October? ?2014 ?4?:?57? ?PM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Cc: For openEHR technical discussions, For openEHR implementation discussions Hi Sam, I think we are coordinating this already :) IMO that's the point of having the wiki pages and asking colleagues to add content, proposals and comments. I think the idea of a key note is great, and I want to collaborate in any way I can, but... as you an others may know, I asked several times for endorsement and support (not talking about money) from the foundation on the training side, to standardize the contents, to have a formal way of certification, and spread the standard, but the board went silent. I'm very pragmatic and I don't know why this is so difficult, for me this is treated in a very political way and should be something technical. With that being said, for me, talking about training under the foundation banner is at least weird. Maybe this is not a good place or time to mention this, but is how I honestly feel about the proposal. I long to see the work I try to do to create awareness about the standard to be supported by the foundation. To be honest, the only support I got is from the Chilean Association of Healthcare Informatics (ACHISA) with whom I'm very thankful because without them I wouldn't be able to create the first online course 100% about openEHR in spanish and provide it to more than 140 people from 15 countries. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: sam.heard at openehrfoundation.org To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 05:48:00 + CC: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-implementers at lists.openehr.org Hi All It would be good to coordinate this and try and get a full range of options available - clinical and technical. Clearly there are a few people who have already done work in South America who might
How do you represent Coronary Angiography and PCI?
Hi Koray, The relationship between angiography and PCI seems similar to the one colonoscopy and polypectomy. How have you figured it out in MST model? Shinji KOBAYASHI 2014-12-15 13:20 GMT+09:00 Koray Atalag k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz: Hi everyone, I reckon openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.imaging_exam.v1 archetype has been used to capture results of invasive angiography (on CKM Heart Failure Clinic First Visit Summary template) as well as non-invasive imaging tests. We are modelling for CathLab registry data here in NZ and would like to get your views on how best to represent both angiography and PCI? To me angiography is an imaging study and PCI is a procedure but they happen simultaneously ? I guess I?m asking how best to represent interventional radiology studies? Imaging + procedure together? Has anyone created new/specialised archetypes for these? Many thanks in advance. Cheers, -koray Koray Atalag, MD, PhD, FACHI Senior Research Fellow in Biomedical Informatics Auckland Bioengineering Institute and National Institute for Health Innovation The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland 1142, New Zealand Tel: +64 9 373 7599 ext: 87199 (NIHI) Mob: +64 21 02412096 LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/koray-atalag/0/5aa/b32 ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials
Hi Pablo, and all Thank you for cooperation. I am working on the developers' workshop proposal based on the last proposal to MEDINFO2013. Please modify and add your description for your project. The Spanish tutorial sounds muy bien. Shinji 2014-10-21 23:06 GMT+09:00 pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com: Hi! I was about to send a message to the lists to coordinate the tutorials topics to minimize overlap. Thanks for creating the page Shinji! That will help a lot for doing that coordination. I'll add a list of topics and anyone can mark his/her preference for giving a tutorial about it, so we can detect collisions. For the spanish speakers, the MedInfo organization wants to have some tutorials in spanish to encourage the LatAm community to participate in the conference. Also until december they have a preferential price for LatAm colleagues (still pricey but it's MedInfo :). Cheers, Pablo. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: skoba at moss.gr.jp Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 22:56:46 +0900 Subject: Re: MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org CC: openehr-implementers at lists.openehr.org; openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org Dear colleagues, I updated Wiki description about MEDINFO 2015 and made the developers' workshop 2015 page. http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2015 Could you all please take a look and add comments or describe your plan? Shinji KOBAYASHI 2014-08-05 10:22 GMT+09:00 pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com: Of course! I should have think of Jussara before. I'll talk with her and her fellow openEHR.br colleagues to see if we can get this organized. BTW, just to start the coordination I would like to do a workshop focused on openEHR data store and query. And if there's interest, another one focused on UI: generation, manipulation, processing, models, etc. (we're presenting a paper on this topic at the InfoLac congress, this year is in Uruguay! lucky me: http://infolac2014.org/index.php/en/) -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 08:30:32 + CC: openehr-implementers at lists.openehr.org Hi Pablo I wonder if Jusara could organise a submeeting in an academic/industry forum prior to MedInfo? Cheers Sam Sent from Windows Mail From: pablo pazos Sent: ?Saturday?, ?2? ?August? ?2014 ?9?:?06? ?AM To: For openEHR clinical discussions, For openEHR technical discussions Cc: For openEHR implementation discussions Thanks for the info Heather! I think we should do something similar to the previous workshops for devs, something simple to get newcomers to understand how to work with archetypes in software (parsing, processing, validating data, extracting paths, etc), and more specific topics for skilled openEHR devs (persistence options, REST APIs, querying, reporting, UI generation, ...). I would love to see a hands-on tutorial in which we can program live and help newcomers to pass the first barrier in openEHR software development: lose the fear of archetypes. Also I would like to know how we want to present this, should we submit the proposals individualy and then organize or should we coordinate and make one proposal with all the workshops/tutorials? Thanks! -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org Subject: RE: MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:54:59 + CC: openehr-implementers at lists.openehr.org Hi Pablo, We have kept info on Conferences in the wiki: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/Conferences See Medinfo 2013: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2013+-+Copenhagen,+Denmark. 2 half day sessions were held then ? one clinical modelling focussed and the other technical Regards Heather From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of pablo pazos Sent: Friday, 1 August 2014 12:14 AM To: openeh technical; openEHR Clinical Cc: openehr implementers Subject: RE: MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials Hi Shinji! By chance, do you have the agendas of the previous openEHR developer's workshops? It would be nice to see what has been done, do a little bit of introduction workshops for beginners and do some new cool stuff for skilled openEHR devs. BTW, maybe a good place to coordinate and share info about ideas
MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials
Dear colleagues, I updated Wiki description about MEDINFO 2015 and made the developers' workshop 2015 page. http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2015 Could you all please take a look and add comments or describe your plan? Shinji KOBAYASHI 2014-08-05 10:22 GMT+09:00 pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com: Of course! I should have think of Jussara before. I'll talk with her and her fellow openEHR.br colleagues to see if we can get this organized. BTW, just to start the coordination I would like to do a workshop focused on openEHR data store and query. And if there's interest, another one focused on UI: generation, manipulation, processing, models, etc. (we're presenting a paper on this topic at the InfoLac congress, this year is in Uruguay! lucky me: http://infolac2014.org/index.php/en/) -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 08:30:32 + CC: openehr-implementers at lists.openehr.org Hi Pablo I wonder if Jusara could organise a submeeting in an academic/industry forum prior to MedInfo? Cheers Sam Sent from Windows Mail From: pablo pazos Sent: ?Saturday?, ?2? ?August? ?2014 ?9?:?06? ?AM To: For openEHR clinical discussions, For openEHR technical discussions Cc: For openEHR implementation discussions Thanks for the info Heather! I think we should do something similar to the previous workshops for devs, something simple to get newcomers to understand how to work with archetypes in software (parsing, processing, validating data, extracting paths, etc), and more specific topics for skilled openEHR devs (persistence options, REST APIs, querying, reporting, UI generation, ...). I would love to see a hands-on tutorial in which we can program live and help newcomers to pass the first barrier in openEHR software development: lose the fear of archetypes. Also I would like to know how we want to present this, should we submit the proposals individualy and then organize or should we coordinate and make one proposal with all the workshops/tutorials? Thanks! -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org Subject: RE: MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:54:59 + CC: openehr-implementers at lists.openehr.org Hi Pablo, We have kept info on Conferences in the wiki: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/Conferences See Medinfo 2013: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2013+-+Copenhagen,+Denmark. 2 half day sessions were held then ? one clinical modelling focussed and the other technical Regards Heather From: openEHR-technical [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of pablo pazos Sent: Friday, 1 August 2014 12:14 AM To: openeh technical; openEHR Clinical Cc: openehr implementers Subject: RE: MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials Hi Shinji! By chance, do you have the agendas of the previous openEHR developer's workshops? It would be nice to see what has been done, do a little bit of introduction workshops for beginners and do some new cool stuff for skilled openEHR devs. BTW, maybe a good place to coordinate and share info about ideas would be the openEHR wiki. Thanks! -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com From: skoba at moss.gr.jp Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:25:16 +0900 Subject: Re: MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org CC: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org; openehr-implementers at lists.openehr.org Hi Pablo and all, We had developers' workshop at Medinfo2007, 2010 and 2013, and I organized developers' workshop 2010, and 2013. I think the combination of clinical workshop/tutorial half day and developers' workshop half day would be better. I have to write up until the tutorial/workshop dead line, 15 Jan, 2015. Shinji KOBAYASHI 2014-07-29 13:52 GMT+09:00 pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com: Hi all! Since next MedInfo is in Brazil (near Uruguay) I'll be attending for sure. I also might present a paper or two and want to propose an openEHR related tutorial. Is other people planning to present openEHR papers or tutorials? It would be great if we can coordinate tutorials (and topics) together so we can have our openEHR day at MedInfo. What do you think? We have 1 year to plan this, and that's not a lot of time! I hope we can join forces and do something nice for the south american openEHR community. We are eager to learn from others that already have
Archetype Naming proposals - do we need V0?
Hi Thomas Beale, openEHR-EHR-ADMIN_ENTRY.encounter.v1 = org.openEHR::openEHR-EHR-ADMIN_ENTRY.encounter.v0.0.1 = review changes = org.openEHR::openEHR-EHR-ADMIN_ENTRY.encounter.v1.0.0 Would file name nomenclature be changed? There is no spec for file name of archetype, but archetype ids have been assigned to file names. Whereas, : is not available for file name in Windows OS (and old Mac OS). Shinji 2014-10-02 7:28 GMT+09:00 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com: On 01/10/2014 16:44, Sebastian Garde wrote: Hi Sebastian, I realise you are physically not too far away from me in Germany and we even share the same name, so I hope you won't shoot the messenger here, but I have to say the following... The consequence of what you are saying would be that we cannot publish any v1 archetype if it is already on CKM without an analysis if there have been any breaking changes anywhere during the development and review process (which would be the case in most cases I suspect). However, this is the case with or without any of the changes being discussed here: It doesn't matter if draft archetypes become v0 for a while: once they are published they'd be v1 again anyway - and likely incompatible with the previous v1. but none of the existing CKM archetype ids has a namespace, so the new ids will be distinguishable from the old. It would be useful to have some real data on who has used any CKM draft (i.e. 'old') archetypes in real systems to know is there is in fact a problem here or not. Anyway, the renaming should follow the model: openEHR-EHR-ADMIN_ENTRY.encounter.v1 = org.openEHR::openEHR-EHR-ADMIN_ENTRY.encounter.v0.0.1 = review changes = org.openEHR::openEHR-EHR-ADMIN_ENTRY.encounter.v1.0.0 so there is no way for the first and last versions to get mixed up that I can see. If on the other hand, you leave the CKM draft archetypes as v1 and they are published subsequently, there is also no guarantee whatsoever that the published version is compatible with any draft revision (or any of the draft revisions with each other). Either way, if you use them now, no, you cannot just replace a draft archetype with the next revision of the draft archetype or its subsequently published revision. You cannot do it now, because there is no guarantee that they'd be compatible and you cannot do it with or without v0. So, while I certainly acknowledge the problem (more below), it is not a problem that is caused or increased by migrating draft archetypes to v0. And in fact solving this problem is one of the core reasons for the proposed revisioning rules. You will know exactly where you are at and how compatible two archetypes are. So, if you as a company use draft archetypes, this is the risk you have taken - draft archetypes just cannot be assumed stable or backwardly compatible just because they happen to be expressed in (more or less) correct ADL. The impression that draft archetypes are stable has of course been given by the lack of activity in getting draft archetypes published on the international CKM. The industry sprint will hopefully change the momentum of this considerably. The problem you describe is more or less the same for every vendor that uses unstable archetypes, which for lack of alternatives, will most likely be about every vendor. However, I can see some ideas for a solution to this problem, because you can clearly identify all archetypes under the new revisioning rules vs those that are not. Most importantly, archetypes under the proposed revisioning scheme will have a namespace whereas the old ones don't. ah, you got there before me ;-) - thomas ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Archetype Naming proposals - do we need V0?
Hi Ian, I would prefer https://github.com/flazz/semver/ , but not explain :) CKM shows archetype revision history tree, but the version is not changed. For example, openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.blood_pressure version has been kept 1 in these years, but it has 26 revision up. I think it is non-sense to change version by each revision commit, but meaningful change should be reflected to the version number, such as adding item, fixed typo, translation to other language completed. Shinji 2014-10-01 23:05 GMT+09:00 Ian McNicoll ian at mcmi.co.uk: Hi Shinji, Github is your friend - see https://github.com/npm/node-semver but I agree, it is tricky. However it is simply not possible to manage the transition between stable and published archetypes safely by just using numbering alone. We need to very explicitly flag that unstable state so that it can be parsed safely - this is what the '-' gives us. We did look at all sort of numbering schemes and alternatives to Semver but eventually came back to the view that this is pretty well how it has to work. One big advantage of sticking with Semver is that we can take advantage of work like the NPM parser, apart from the The 'exclusive revision history' (if I understand you correctly) comes from the Build identifier, identified by a '+' So an unstable archetype may be v1.0.1-unstable+145567345 and after some internal authoring or reviewing goes to v1.0.1-unstable+35634512 The build identifier is not guaranteed to be sequential and there may well be breaking changes between the first and second iteration. From the developer perspective I can know exactly which build of the archetype I am using in my system, and that it is unstable. I would be very unwise to use this in any production system but may of course need it in a testing phase, or need to support its use within tooling. I am not wedded to -unstable , but I think you will find that if you try to work with some other number=based system, you always hit a problem ,and that some kind of pre-release signifier is required. If we agreed that openEHR would only officially support -unstable (or -alpha) and -rc, that would greatly simplify the parsing. Ian Ian Implementers do not have to parse what comes next On 1 October 2014 14:34, Shinji KOBAYASHI skoba at moss.gr.jp wrote: Hi Ian. I have read once SemVer, but it is still confusing about suffix. especially alpha.11 alpha.beta beta.1 sequence. This needs tricky grammar rule to parse. Hi Sebastian, I think revision history should be exclusive, even it is unstable version. Regards, Shinji 2014-10-01 21:26 GMT+09:00 Ian McNicoll ian at mcmi.co.uk: Hi Shinji, Can I suggest you read the semver.org specifications? Semver is now used pretty widely in systems and tooling (including the nodeJS Package Manager NPM). We have taken the - suffix directly from those specifications and in other respcts we are now following semver exactly so there should be open source parsers out there that can be used. Semver exists because we have to treat semantic specifications differently from normal software builds. In normal software alpha, beta, pre-release and indeed the numbering chosen do not need to have any computable significance. Windows 9 is only called Windows 9 for marketing reasons ,not because it represents a breaking change. My recent Yosemite Beta 3- Beta 4 update may make all sorts of breaking changes but is still a Beta and appears to be only a build different from the Developer Pre-release Yosemite candidate. When we are dealing with Semantic artefacts such as APIs or archetypes, the numbering scheme and suffixes have very specific meanings and rules, to do with backward compatibility. The -suffix is necessary to make it very clear that this is a pre-release artefact and that the normal versioning rules do not apply. What comes after the suffix does not really matter and The prime responsibility we have as archetype authors is to make sure that developers know whether they are working with a stable, published archetype which has followed the versioning rules, or an unstable archetype where those rules are temporarily suspended. It is impossible to do this clearly with a numbering schema alone which is why the - suffix is well-established in SemVer and the tools which use it. In normal circumstances unstable archetypes would never be used in production systems. Ian On 1 October 2014 13:04, Shinji KOBAYASHI skoba at moss.gr.jp wrote: Hi Ian, I prefer V0, because it would be easier to adopt for other developers who do not know openEHR well. For parser implementation, 1.0.0-unstable is not a good design, because it is not clear that which is the later release amongs, unstable, testing, pre-release, release-candidate, draft, etc... I would suggest 0.9.9 instead of 1.0.0-unstable. We can
Archetype Naming proposals - do we need V0?
Sorry, I have misused exclusive to explicit. It is explicit mistake. much sorry to confusing you. Shinji ashamed. 2014-10-02 0:02 GMT+09:00 Shinji KOBAYASHI skoba at moss.gr.jp: Hi Ian, I would prefer https://github.com/flazz/semver/ , but not explain :) CKM shows archetype revision history tree, but the version is not changed. For example, openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.blood_pressure version has been kept 1 in these years, but it has 26 revision up. I think it is non-sense to change version by each revision commit, but meaningful change should be reflected to the version number, such as adding item, fixed typo, translation to other language completed. Shinji 2014-10-01 23:05 GMT+09:00 Ian McNicoll ian at mcmi.co.uk: Hi Shinji, Github is your friend - see https://github.com/npm/node-semver but I agree, it is tricky. However it is simply not possible to manage the transition between stable and published archetypes safely by just using numbering alone. We need to very explicitly flag that unstable state so that it can be parsed safely - this is what the '-' gives us. We did look at all sort of numbering schemes and alternatives to Semver but eventually came back to the view that this is pretty well how it has to work. One big advantage of sticking with Semver is that we can take advantage of work like the NPM parser, apart from the The 'exclusive revision history' (if I understand you correctly) comes from the Build identifier, identified by a '+' So an unstable archetype may be v1.0.1-unstable+145567345 and after some internal authoring or reviewing goes to v1.0.1-unstable+35634512 The build identifier is not guaranteed to be sequential and there may well be breaking changes between the first and second iteration. From the developer perspective I can know exactly which build of the archetype I am using in my system, and that it is unstable. I would be very unwise to use this in any production system but may of course need it in a testing phase, or need to support its use within tooling. I am not wedded to -unstable , but I think you will find that if you try to work with some other number=based system, you always hit a problem ,and that some kind of pre-release signifier is required. If we agreed that openEHR would only officially support -unstable (or -alpha) and -rc, that would greatly simplify the parsing. Ian Ian Implementers do not have to parse what comes next On 1 October 2014 14:34, Shinji KOBAYASHI skoba at moss.gr.jp wrote: Hi Ian. I have read once SemVer, but it is still confusing about suffix. especially alpha.11 alpha.beta beta.1 sequence. This needs tricky grammar rule to parse. Hi Sebastian, I think revision history should be exclusive, even it is unstable version. Regards, Shinji 2014-10-01 21:26 GMT+09:00 Ian McNicoll ian at mcmi.co.uk: Hi Shinji, Can I suggest you read the semver.org specifications? Semver is now used pretty widely in systems and tooling (including the nodeJS Package Manager NPM). We have taken the - suffix directly from those specifications and in other respcts we are now following semver exactly so there should be open source parsers out there that can be used. Semver exists because we have to treat semantic specifications differently from normal software builds. In normal software alpha, beta, pre-release and indeed the numbering chosen do not need to have any computable significance. Windows 9 is only called Windows 9 for marketing reasons ,not because it represents a breaking change. My recent Yosemite Beta 3- Beta 4 update may make all sorts of breaking changes but is still a Beta and appears to be only a build different from the Developer Pre-release Yosemite candidate. When we are dealing with Semantic artefacts such as APIs or archetypes, the numbering scheme and suffixes have very specific meanings and rules, to do with backward compatibility. The -suffix is necessary to make it very clear that this is a pre-release artefact and that the normal versioning rules do not apply. What comes after the suffix does not really matter and The prime responsibility we have as archetype authors is to make sure that developers know whether they are working with a stable, published archetype which has followed the versioning rules, or an unstable archetype where those rules are temporarily suspended. It is impossible to do this clearly with a numbering schema alone which is why the - suffix is well-established in SemVer and the tools which use it. In normal circumstances unstable archetypes would never be used in production systems. Ian On 1 October 2014 13:04, Shinji KOBAYASHI skoba at moss.gr.jp wrote: Hi Ian, I prefer V0, because it would be easier to adopt for other developers who do not know openEHR well. For parser implementation, 1.0.0-unstable is not a good design
Archetype Naming proposals - do we need V0?
Hi Ian and Sebastian, The rule figured by Sebastian and the explanation by Ian looks very clear, thank you. But we will need to additional rule/guide to make it clear what is 'major' or 'minor', in the next step. For example, if the archetype was converted from ADL 1.4 to 1.5(or later), is this minor change or major change? ADL conversion may break compatibility for machine readability, but not change in clinical semantics. If an archetype was changed to be semantically incompatible, I think they should not be assigned for same archetype id. regards, Shinji 2014-10-02 1:16 GMT+09:00 Ian McNicoll ian at mcmi.co.uk: Hi Shinji, For clarity ... CKM 'revisions' have nothing to do with the official openEHR major.minor.path numbers. They are an internal format to do with the local workflows inherit in openEHR. We have discussed changing CKM 'revision' to something else to make this clearer. The official major.minor.patch number proposals are intended to be neutral to the use of CKM or any other repository tool, even the use of a simple Git repo, and make no assumptions about how the assets are organised within that repo e.g a git-based repo may have a quite different Trunk/branching method and use branch names/ tags to handle internal workflow. The aim of the openEHR major.minor.patch scheme is to ensure that where an archetype is used outside of a repo, in tooling or in applications, that the consumer can be very confident about the exact provenance of the archetype and especially its stability. So ignore what CKM does internally, that is not important in this context. In the future each archetype in CKM (and we hope other controlled repos) will also label every asset and version of the asset using major.minor.patch -XX + build, alongside what ever local internal versioning scheme they require. Ian On 1 October 2014 17:00, Sebastian Garde sebastian.garde at oceaninformatics.com wrote: On 01.10.2014 17:02, Shinji KOBAYASHI wrote: Hi Ian, I would prefer https://github.com/flazz/semver/ , but not explain :) CKM shows archetype revision history tree, but the version is not changed. For example, openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.blood_pressure version has been kept 1 in these years, but it has 26 revision up. I think it is non-sense to change version by each revision commit, but meaningful change should be reflected to the version number, such as adding item, fixed typo, translation to other language completed. Hi Shinji, With the new revision rules a la SemVer we now have: The major version would change with an incompatible change (=the current v1, v2, etc identifier) The minor version for a compatible change which could change the meaning even if only slightly The patch version for e.g. fixing a typo in a translation. There are some grey areas, but the intention is clear I think. In CKM, you can do this with the new revision rules. CKM will suggest a new revision number based on this general idea. In any case you can always go higher - if you think a patch change is so significant because of the wording that has changed, it can also be a minor (or even major) version increase, i.e. instead of going from v1.0.0 to v1.0.1, you go to v1.1.0 To take the example of the BP archetype that you mention: The archetype was published in Rev 16 in 2009. Since then it has encountered several more changes to it like adding a couple of translations. None of these would be a breaking change to my knowledge. So, in the old rules it just remains v1. With the new revision rules, the archetype would have been published as v1.0.0 in 2009 and would now maybe be v1.2.4 (or whatever) - which means it had a number of patches and 2 minor version changes in total, none of them backwardly incompatible. Is this the kind of stuff you are missing? If so, this is exactly what the revisioning rules are there for. Cheers Sebastian Shinji 2014-10-01 23:05 GMT+09:00 Ian McNicoll ian at mcmi.co.uk: Hi Shinji, Github is your friend - see https://github.com/npm/node-semver but I agree, it is tricky. However it is simply not possible to manage the transition between stable and published archetypes safely by just using numbering alone. We need to very explicitly flag that unstable state so that it can be parsed safely - this is what the '-' gives us. We did look at all sort of numbering schemes and alternatives to Semver but eventually came back to the view that this is pretty well how it has to work. One big advantage of sticking with Semver is that we can take advantage of work like the NPM parser, apart from the The 'exclusive revision history' (if I understand you correctly) comes from the Build identifier, identified by a '+' So an unstable archetype may be v1.0.1-unstable+145567345 and after some internal authoring or reviewing goes to v1.0.1-unstable+35634512 The build identifier is not guaranteed to be sequential and there may well
Archetype Naming proposals - do we need V0?
Hi Ian, I prefer V0, because it would be easier to adopt for other developers who do not know openEHR well. For parser implementation, 1.0.0-unstable is not a good design, because it is not clear that which is the later release amongs, unstable, testing, pre-release, release-candidate, draft, etc... I would suggest 0.9.9 instead of 1.0.0-unstable. We can revise the revision 0.9.9 after it released, to 0.9.9.9. or 0.9.9.99. Shinji 2014-10-01 19:23 GMT+09:00 Ian McNicoll ian at mcmi.co.uk: Hi all, Apologies for cross-posting in both clinical and technical but this does neatly cross that divide. We are getting close in CKM to implementing the ADL1.5 archetype naming /versioning rules proposed at http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/ADL/Knowledge+Artefact+Identification mostly by adding the metadata to the ADL other_details section, which means we can carry the information in ADL 1.4 archetypes without disturbing current systems. These latest proposals are now very much in line with the de-facto standard SemVer 2.0 see http://semver.org which allows major revision minor revision patch build but one of the questions which remains controversial is whether to support a major revision of V0 (as allowed in SemVer). In Semver, V0 is allowed for very immature ?first draft? semantic artefacts/APIs prior to initial release but SemVer allows for any revision to appended with a pre-release modifier e.g. v2.0.0-alpha or v1.0.0-unstable This is recognised as meaning that the artefact is unstable and the version numbering cannot be relied on e.g to assert backward compatibility. In that sense v0.0.0 and v1.0.0-unstable are identical in terms of their ?stability? and lack of commitment to the versioning rules. So the question for us in the openEHR world is whether tooling should support v0.0.0, or simply use v1.0.0-unstable V0 Advantages 1. The archetype is clearly marked as immature 2. Full compliance with SemVer 3. Supported in current test build of CKM V0 Disadvantages 1. Tooling e.g Archetype Editor (actually ADL Parser) needs to change to support V0 2. Add another layer of complexity to the archetype naming/versioning rules 3. Question arises of whether / if to convert current draft V1 CKM archetypes to V0 with overhead of explanation to current users. 4. Adds complexity where V0 archetypes are being used within templates, when the archetype is published and needs to be updated to V1 within these templates. V1- Advantages 1. Compliant with SemVer 2. Does not need any changes to Archetype Editor. 3. Easier transition between draft and publication states when used within templates i.e does not need V0-v1 change V1- Disadvantages 1. Does not so clearly differentiate ?first draft? archetype from others Before a final decision is made, we are interested in feedback from the community on whether V0 should be implemented in CKM and other openEHR tools, although in practice V1- will do an identical job in terms of version number governance. Regards, Ian McNicoll Heather Leslie Sebastian Garde Thomas Beale ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
Archetype Naming proposals - do we need V0?
Hi Ian. I have read once SemVer, but it is still confusing about suffix. especially alpha.11 alpha.beta beta.1 sequence. This needs tricky grammar rule to parse. Hi Sebastian, I think revision history should be exclusive, even it is unstable version. Regards, Shinji 2014-10-01 21:26 GMT+09:00 Ian McNicoll ian at mcmi.co.uk: Hi Shinji, Can I suggest you read the semver.org specifications? Semver is now used pretty widely in systems and tooling (including the nodeJS Package Manager NPM). We have taken the - suffix directly from those specifications and in other respcts we are now following semver exactly so there should be open source parsers out there that can be used. Semver exists because we have to treat semantic specifications differently from normal software builds. In normal software alpha, beta, pre-release and indeed the numbering chosen do not need to have any computable significance. Windows 9 is only called Windows 9 for marketing reasons ,not because it represents a breaking change. My recent Yosemite Beta 3- Beta 4 update may make all sorts of breaking changes but is still a Beta and appears to be only a build different from the Developer Pre-release Yosemite candidate. When we are dealing with Semantic artefacts such as APIs or archetypes, the numbering scheme and suffixes have very specific meanings and rules, to do with backward compatibility. The -suffix is necessary to make it very clear that this is a pre-release artefact and that the normal versioning rules do not apply. What comes after the suffix does not really matter and The prime responsibility we have as archetype authors is to make sure that developers know whether they are working with a stable, published archetype which has followed the versioning rules, or an unstable archetype where those rules are temporarily suspended. It is impossible to do this clearly with a numbering schema alone which is why the - suffix is well-established in SemVer and the tools which use it. In normal circumstances unstable archetypes would never be used in production systems. Ian On 1 October 2014 13:04, Shinji KOBAYASHI skoba at moss.gr.jp wrote: Hi Ian, I prefer V0, because it would be easier to adopt for other developers who do not know openEHR well. For parser implementation, 1.0.0-unstable is not a good design, because it is not clear that which is the later release amongs, unstable, testing, pre-release, release-candidate, draft, etc... I would suggest 0.9.9 instead of 1.0.0-unstable. We can revise the revision 0.9.9 after it released, to 0.9.9.9. or 0.9.9.99. Shinji 2014-10-01 19:23 GMT+09:00 Ian McNicoll ian at mcmi.co.uk: Hi all, Apologies for cross-posting in both clinical and technical but this does neatly cross that divide. We are getting close in CKM to implementing the ADL1.5 archetype naming /versioning rules proposed at http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/ADL/Knowledge+Artefact+Identification mostly by adding the metadata to the ADL other_details section, which means we can carry the information in ADL 1.4 archetypes without disturbing current systems. These latest proposals are now very much in line with the de-facto standard SemVer 2.0 see http://semver.org which allows major revision minor revision patch build but one of the questions which remains controversial is whether to support a major revision of V0 (as allowed in SemVer). In Semver, V0 is allowed for very immature ?first draft? semantic artefacts/APIs prior to initial release but SemVer allows for any revision to appended with a pre-release modifier e.g. v2.0.0-alpha or v1.0.0-unstable This is recognised as meaning that the artefact is unstable and the version numbering cannot be relied on e.g to assert backward compatibility. In that sense v0.0.0 and v1.0.0-unstable are identical in terms of their ?stability? and lack of commitment to the versioning rules. So the question for us in the openEHR world is whether tooling should support v0.0.0, or simply use v1.0.0-unstable V0 Advantages 1. The archetype is clearly marked as immature 2. Full compliance with SemVer 3. Supported in current test build of CKM V0 Disadvantages 1. Tooling e.g Archetype Editor (actually ADL Parser) needs to change to support V0 2. Add another layer of complexity to the archetype naming/versioning rules 3. Question arises of whether / if to convert current draft V1 CKM archetypes to V0 with overhead of explanation to current users. 4. Adds complexity where V0 archetypes are being used within templates, when the archetype is published and needs to be updated to V1 within these templates. V1- Advantages 1. Compliant with SemVer 2. Does not need any changes to Archetype Editor. 3. Easier transition between draft and publication states when used within templates i.e does not need V0-v1 change
ALS archetype challenge.
Hi all, I took over ALS ice bucket challenge from Dr Sam Heard nomination. In addition, I would like to make archetypes for ALS and neuron degenerative disorders. Please see here, for brief summary of my challenge. http://ehr.design.kyoto-u.ac.jp/201409_als.html I am considering about ICF(International Classification of Functionality) to evaluate and record functionality. Do you have any idea about to this challenge? Shinji KOBAYASHI
MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials
Hi Pablo and all, We had developers' workshop at Medinfo2007, 2010 and 2013, and I organized developers' workshop 2010, and 2013. I think the combination of clinical workshop/tutorial half day and developers' workshop half day would be better. I have to write up until the tutorial/workshop dead line, 15 Jan, 2015. Shinji KOBAYASHI 2014-07-29 13:52 GMT+09:00 pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com: Hi all! Since next MedInfo is in Brazil (near Uruguay) I'll be attending for sure. I also might present a paper or two and want to propose an openEHR related tutorial. Is other people planning to present openEHR papers or tutorials? It would be great if we can coordinate tutorials (and topics) together so we can have our openEHR day at MedInfo. What do you think? We have 1 year to plan this, and that's not a lot of time! I hope we can join forces and do something nice for the south american openEHR community. We are eager to learn from others that already have openEHR working in the real world, and learn from their success and failures. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez http://cabolabs.com http://cabolabs.com/es/home http://twitter.com/ppazos ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140730/a311abd6/attachment.html
Potential interest in establishment of an academic CKM instance?
Hi, Heather I'm much interested in this project, because we are just launching a few projects. as Eric mentioned, I think incubator would be good. Shinji 2014/07/11 14:46 Heather Leslie heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com: Hi everyone, *I cautiously send this email as I?m aware that it can be perceived to border on the line between commercial and community, so request if anyone is interested in following through with my idea to email me privately and not use the list any further.* I?ve been approached by someone requesting an academic CKM instance that could be used for university teaching purposes. So I am curious to see if there was broader interest in establishing a shared academic CKM for use by universities - for academic, non-commercial purposes only. I?m proposing a solution that would operate a little along the lines of the UK CKM, where there are a number of academic entities sharing the same CKM domain instance, but each with their own autonomous subdomains. This could be useful to kickstart some collaborative academic activity between universities in clinical knowledge management. There are pros and cons for this arrangement, which I?ve tried to outline below: Pros: ? All functionality of the standard CKM will be fully available (ie what you currently see on the openEHR CKM) ? the library, collaborative portal and governance/distribution capability will be fully enabled, including projects/incubators and running archetype/template reviews. ? You would have autonomy within your subdomain (ie effectively a folder or subset of the whole CKM instance) and all of the assets within it. ? The price per university would be minimised as the costs in running, maintaining and hosting the CKM instance would be shared by all. ? As more universities came on board, potentially the cost of the subdomain based on the shared running costs would be minimised, and the license price would mostly be based on the number of assets in the subdomain ie starting with a minimum of 50, and above that it is based on honest usage. Cons: ? If we had multiple universities participating in a single CKM instance who are not coordinating their activity, then I would anticipate that the CKM could become quite a mixed and confused set of models ? acceptable perhaps for academic purposes, but not a good basis for implementations, except at subdomain level. ? No choice about others who would share your CKM instance. ? No control over what activity occurred in other subdomains eg others may upload other archetypes that were similar or potentially conflicting. This is being managed to some degree in the UK instance by the presence of Ian McNicoll, but may not be possible if a widely varied group of academic institutions participate. Coordination between the other subdomain users would be up to all parties voluntarily deciding to work together. I would propose an initial CKM to be in English, although if there was enough interest from a single language group, we could potentially arrange for a number of translated CKMs as well. Please contact me on heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com if you have any questions or wish to express interest. I am also planning to attend MIE 2014 in Istanbul next month if anyone wants to discuss this further. Regards Heather *Dr Heather Leslie* MBBS FRACGP FACHI Director/Consulting Lead *Ocean Informatics http://www.oceaninformatics.com/* Phone - +61 418 966 670 Skype - heatherleslie Twitter - @omowizard ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140711/acc8fa95/attachment.html
Meeting at Medinfo?
Hi Heather, Meeting 20, night sounds very good for me, because developers' workshop will be late on the last day, 23 Friday. I am very happy we can meet you again at Copenhagen. Shinji 2013/8/1 Heather Leslie heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com: Dear Colleagues attending Medinfo, Hugh, Ian, Sebastian and I will be attending from Ocean this year. We?d love to catch up with our openEHR colleagues informally one evening, maybe even for a meal if we can organise it. The program overview is here: http://www.medinfo2013.dk/Program%20at%20a%20glance Perhaps we could meet after the opening reception on Tuesday night, 20th? What do you think? Regards Heather Dr Heather Leslie MBBS FRACGP FACHI Director/Head of Consulting Ocean Informatics Phone (Aust) +61 418 966 670 Skype - heatherleslie Twitter - @omowizard ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
FW: Medinfo 2013 - Scientific Program Committee Decision, Id: 946
Hi, all I would like to believe this rejection is an evidence for less demands for tutorial, just means openEHR clinical modeling has become known well. However, I do wish to have clinical modeling tutorial/workshop at MEDINFO 2015, Sao Paulo! Regards, Shinji 2013/3/14 Jussara macedo jussara.macedo at gmail.com Schade, Without this I wont?get any funding to be there. Lincoln Moura is going to take his seat as IMIA president in this meeting and we would like to be there, since it?s the first brazilian to be president, to my knowlege at least. But Shinji approved the developer?s one,so we openEHR will be represented there. I only hope the rejection isn?t a sign of short vision ;) Regards, Jussara R?tzsch Md, MSc Director, OpenEHR Foundation Owner, Giant Global Graph ehealth Solutions http://www.giantglobalgraph.com.br On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Heather Leslie heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com wrote: Unfortunately our proposal for the clinical modelling workshop at Medinfo was not successful ** ** Regards ** ** Heather ** ** *From:* Medinfo2013 [mailto:mailrobot at online-registry.net] *Sent:* Thursday, 14 March 2013 3:05 AM *To:* heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com *Subject:* Medinfo 2013 - Scientific Program Committee Decision, Id: 946* *** ** ** Medinfo 2013 [image: https://medinfo2013.online-registry.net/download/preliminaryDecisionHeader0.png] [image: https://medinfo2013.online-registry.net/download/preliminaryDecisionHeader1.png] *MEDINFO 2013 - Decision on Submission ID MEDINFO-946* 12th March 2013 ** ** Dear Dr. Heather Leslie, Thank you for submitting your contribution entitled The international impact of openEHR clinical content models (Id=946) to MEDINFO 2013, the 14th World Congress on Medical and Health Informatics to be held from August 20-23 2013 at the Bella Center, Copenhagen, Denmark. Medinfo 2013 received a very large number of submissions, with more than 500 papers and more than 200 posters. All submitted papers were reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers and members of the Scientific Program Committee (SPC). All submitted posters, workshops, panels, and scientific demonstrations were reviewed by members of the SPC. Given the constraints of the limited meeting length and space, and the high quality of the submissions, the SPC was forced to make some difficult decisions this year. Unfortunately, your submission was not accepted for the conference program. We appreciated your submission; comments from the reviewers are listed below and we hope that they are informative and helpful. MEDINFO 2013 Decision: Not Accepted We hope that you can still join the international biomedical informatics community at MEDINFO in Copenhagen. The early bird deadline is April 15, 2013. You can register and get additional information about the conference program, tutorial, on-site program, etc. at: www.medinfo2013.dk Warm Regards Dominik Aronsky Tze-Yun Leong, SPC Co-chairs Reviewers' Comments This proposal is more suitable for a tutorial. The authors do not clearly describe audience engagement strategies.THe strengths come from a panel of experimented implementers of openEHR archetypes and a clear educational purpose, but it lacks methodology to encourage attendees to interact with the presenters. [image: Medinfo 2013 - logo] https://medinfo2013.online-registry.net/** ** ** ** -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130314/fb228886/attachment-0001.html
FW: Clinical modelling workshop at Medinfo?
Dear Heather, Jussara, and speakers. I made a draft of clinical modeling workshop http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/The+openEHR+clinical+modeling+workshop%28DRAFT%29 I just remember, that Sam suggested Heather to make clinical workshop only two days before at the last medinfo 2010. Regards, Shinji 2013/1/7 Heather Leslie heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com: Hi everyone. We're a couple of days away from the deadline. It's almost too late, but maybe not quite... I've had offers of contributions and to attend but no one has offered to coordinate a submission. It is unlikely that I will attend, so any workshop should be shaped by the presenters, so please don?t be waiting for me. Personally, I think it would be a real positive for the whole community if Ocean stepped back and weren't organising this workshop. So far we have: ? Shinji (Japan) - to discuss issues around localisation ? Jussara - to discuss adoption in Brazil ? Jose/Ricardo (Portugal) - ?? ? John Hughes (Canada) - progress re modelling group within Canadian College. ? Rong (Sweden) - his latest CDS work Is anyone willing to step up and lead? I?m certainly willing to help write the submission. It seems a great opportunity and a shame to miss any chance to educate and share of our efforts Regards Heather -Original Message- From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Heather Leslie Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012 11:25 PM To: 'For openEHR clinical discussions' Subject: RE: Clinical modelling workshop at Medinfo? Hi everyone, I'm afraid that I'm a little confused about the outcome of these emails. I hear that people will attend, but not receiving clear offers to contribute to the workshop or, more importantly, to take on the organisational role. I'm not likely to have time to pull something together, and given that I've already indicated my attendance is unlikely it seems to be not quite appropriate. I'm willing to help. If I've misconstrued offers pre-existing for help, my apologies - please clarify for me. If we can't establish clear intent for contributions ASAP, it seems like our opportunity may have passed but happy to be proven wrong :) Regards Heather -Original Message- From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Koray Atalag Sent: Monday, 3 December 2012 7:56 AM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Subject: RE: Clinical modelling workshop at Medinfo? Ditto - funding will not be possible for me. I guess I'll be spending this year's allocation for the Japanese workshop Cheers, -koray -Original Message- From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Jussara macedo Sent: Thursday, 29 November 2012 6:12 a.m. To: For openEHR clinical discussions Subject: Re: Clinical modelling workshop at Medinfo? I?d like to take part of that, but also have minimal chance of being there, due the lack ot time. BTW the one we held last week in our national health informatics congress was a huge success of audience. many groups of experts with real implementation were there. We discovered that there is a dental EHR which developed ca 50 archetypes and that now it?s a propriety o DELL! Of course they didn?t share with our community. I told them on the CC license, but it seems it?s not very well understood the collaborative space we?re trying to create. I think it?s time for us to organize a panel on archetypes governance. Apropos many, many people want to be more involved with archetype design but I think that language is a barrier here. We definitely need some local ambiance to foster this kind of work. Jussara R?tzsch Md, MSc Director, OpenEHR Foundation Owner, Giant Global Graph ehealth Solutions On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Heather Leslie heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com wrote: Hi everyone, Shinji has kick-started a wiki page to support the proposed developer's workshop at Medinfo in Copenhagen next year - http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2013+-+Copenhage n%2C+Denmark Deadline for submissions is December 10, I believe. Who would like to be involved in the development of a Clinical Workshop? I have no guarantee and only a small likelihood of being able to attend, given the distance J I'd suggest it being along the lines of an introduction to openEHR modelling still. Whenever we run these courses at conferences or privately they usually very well attended. I don't think we should focus much on more advanced ideas - Ian and I ran an advanced workshop at MIE in Pisa in August, focusing on the ins and outs of clinical knowledge governance, which we thought topical, but most of
Clinical modelling workshop at Medinfo?
Hi Heather, I will add some update to localization in Japan at workshop. We now have regular meeting to discuss archetype. Regards, Shinji. 2012/12/5 Heather Leslie heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com: Hi everyone, I'm afraid that I'm a little confused about the outcome of these emails. I hear that people will attend, but not receiving clear offers to contribute to the workshop or, more importantly, to take on the organisational role. I'm not likely to have time to pull something together, and given that I've already indicated my attendance is unlikely it seems to be not quite appropriate. I'm willing to help. If I've misconstrued offers pre-existing for help, my apologies - please clarify for me. If we can't establish clear intent for contributions ASAP, it seems like our opportunity may have passed but happy to be proven wrong :) Regards Heather -Original Message- From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Koray Atalag Sent: Monday, 3 December 2012 7:56 AM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Subject: RE: Clinical modelling workshop at Medinfo? Ditto - funding will not be possible for me. I guess I'll be spending this year's allocation for the Japanese workshop Cheers, -koray -Original Message- From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Jussara macedo Sent: Thursday, 29 November 2012 6:12 a.m. To: For openEHR clinical discussions Subject: Re: Clinical modelling workshop at Medinfo? I?d like to take part of that, but also have minimal chance of being there, due the lack ot time. BTW the one we held last week in our national health informatics congress was a huge success of audience. many groups of experts with real implementation were there. We discovered that there is a dental EHR which developed ca 50 archetypes and that now it?s a propriety o DELL! Of course they didn?t share with our community. I told them on the CC license, but it seems it?s not very well understood the collaborative space we?re trying to create. I think it?s time for us to organize a panel on archetypes governance. Apropos many, many people want to be more involved with archetype design but I think that language is a barrier here. We definitely need some local ambiance to foster this kind of work. Jussara R?tzsch Md, MSc Director, OpenEHR Foundation Owner, Giant Global Graph ehealth Solutions On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Heather Leslie heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com wrote: Hi everyone, Shinji has kick-started a wiki page to support the proposed developer's workshop at Medinfo in Copenhagen next year - http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/resources/MEDINFO+2013+-+Copenhage n%2C+Denmark Deadline for submissions is December 10, I believe. Who would like to be involved in the development of a Clinical Workshop? I have no guarantee and only a small likelihood of being able to attend, given the distance J I'd suggest it being along the lines of an introduction to openEHR modelling still. Whenever we run these courses at conferences or privately they usually very well attended. I don't think we should focus much on more advanced ideas - Ian and I ran an advanced workshop at MIE in Pisa in August, focusing on the ins and outs of clinical knowledge governance, which we thought topical, but most of the audience were absolute newcomers and we had to tone it down and simplify in mid-workshop. Regards Heather Dr Heather Leslie MBBS FRACGP FACHI Director of Clinical Modelling Ocean Informatics Phone (Aust) +61 (0)418 966 670 Skype - heatherleslie Twitter - @omowizard ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.opene hr.org ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7753 (20121201) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7753 (20121201) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Yet another OBSERVATION vs. EVALUATION issue
Hi Gerald, Completely agree with controversy in RISK evaluation. I have similar experience on SEVERITY evaluation. openEHR-EHR-problem-diagnosis archetype has severity metrics, but it does not fit for various evaluation criteria. I specialized to have a 'severity detail' slot to apply various severity criteria for many diseases. As Risk evaluation depends on cases, we need to develop cluster to express such risk evaluation models on demand. Regards, Shinji 2012/8/15 Gerard Freriks gfrer at luna.nl: RISK is a complex thing. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk#ISO31000:2009_Risk_Management_Standard Only looking at temporal aspects: The risk to die within 10 years when you are 100 years old is HIGH The risk to die within 10 years when you are 30 years old is LOW The risk to die within 100 years for each average person is HIGH The risk to die within one day for the average person is LOW The risk to have prostate cancer until 40 years of age LOW The risk to have prostate cancer after 70 years is HIGH Adding severity: The risk to die of prostate cancer after 70 years is LOW (Most man have prostate cancer at this age but most never die because of it) How is RISK used in healthcare? Almost never it is calculated with mathematical precision. It is expressed in a semi-quantitative way: Low, Normal, High, etc. It would be nice when archetypes can express that in a sensible way. It will be impossible to use the DV-Data Type for this. Reason? It is not expressive enough because the semi-quantitative result needs to document more. It needs inclusion and exclusion criteria because there is no generic definition of Low, Normal, High. Each context is unique and opinions change over time. Each and everybody has to define the criteria in the local context. (Speciality, organisation, disease/condition, healthcare provider even patient specific at one point in time) Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gfrer at luna.nl On 14 Aug 2012, at 16:58, Stefan Sauermann wrote: HIGH RISK= High probability of Something to occur in a certain time period and causing a severe harm to persons or other subjects LOW RISK = something will never occur and even if it does it will not harm anyone or anything Greetings, Stefan Sauermann Program Director Biomedical Engineering Sciences (Master) University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien Hoechstaedtplatz 5, 1200 Vienna, Austria P: +43 1 333 40 77 - 988 M: +43 664 6192555 E: stefan.sauermann at technikum-wien.at I: www.technikum-wien.at/mbe I: www.technikum-wien.at/ibmt I: www.healthy-interoperability.at Am 14.08.2012 16:55, schrieb Gerard Freriks: E.g. RISK= High Risk of Something to occur in a certain time period. ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
Translation approaches
Hi Heather and all, I think translation is only one of the alternative concepts for the original. Validation for translated artefacts is much controversial, because there are many answers for it and no perfect answer especially in subjective matters. Terminology system provides most possible candidate in semantics, but it is limited as Thomas Beale said. Each localisation committee could be engaged in translation management to add some proof of validity. What about such community proof for? Best regards, Shinji Kobayashi 2012/1/17 Heather Leslie heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com: I don't think there is any doubt that the original language is 'king' - after all in captures the intent of the authors best. Translations ?are ideally added after the archetype is stable and has been published. We saw a perfect example of how translation efforts can go to waste when an archetype is translated while still in draft, where all that was safely salvageable of the German and Arabic translations for the Adverse Reaction archetype were a few nodes when the content was significantly changed. However also keep in mind that while we are collecting quite a number of translations for both draft and published archetypes, we have not yet had any translations verified - they are only the work of an individual so far. So part of our ongoing process will be to organise reviews of each translation to ensure that the translation is also true and safe. Similar processes are in place in CKM for terminology binding reviews - to enable those with terminology insights to ensure that where they are bound in an archetype, they are the best for the job! However the original question Ian raised was around how to be more efficient in managing our translations and I'm not sure that there is an easy answer here. Translators will hopefully be able to guide those of us severely limited to English. Domingo Liotta translated an archetype recently into Argentinian Spanish and when asked he confirmed that there was nothing specific to the Argentinian translation that was not appropriate for the Spanish parent, so this single translation has been uploaded for both. This is a bit clunky but probably the way we will have to work in future, gradually understanding where we might leverage strong language similarities and where this will not be possible. Whether we can upload a translation for a parent language and update certain nodes in a specific child language does not necessarily appear to be a less complex operation. We will learn, no doubt! Cheers Heather -Original Message- From: openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Koray Atalag Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2012 9:32 AM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Subject: RE: Translation approaches I totally agree with Ian here...The gold standard should be the original language - whatever that is. And it is the responsibility of the people who are using it clinically (even on paper form) to make sure the meaning is not altered. I think the same argument would apply to Merck Manual which is originally published in English (us) but has translations in almost any language on which many clinicians depend on when making decisions... QA by a reputable body (in this case CKM editorial group) is essential. Terminology is always good but not essential and I suspect there may be conflicting ontological sources out there (e.g. describing same concepts in a different way). Cheers, -koray -Original Message- From: openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Ian McNicoll Sent: Sunday, 15 January 2012 8:06 a.m. To: For openEHR clinical discussions Subject: Re: Translation approaches Hi Gerard, The gold standard in openEHR archetypes is always the primary authored language. In practice many non-English-authoring authors will choose to provide an English translation but it is ultimately up to the consumer of the archetype to ensure that translations (to any language) are correct. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office +44 (0)1536 414 994 fax +44 (0)1536 516317 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical Modelling Consultant,?Ocean Informatics, UK Director/Clinical Knowledge Editor openEHR Foundation ?www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org On 14 January 2012 18:20, Gerard Freriks gfrer at luna.nl wrote: I accept that there are several languages, now. But when it comes to connecting e uniform meaning to these strings of text we need to define the Golden Standard, so we all know what is meant. Or do you accept as expression of the meaning a string of text you do not understand? Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gfrer at luna.nl On 14 jan
Translation approaches
Hi Jussara, Yes, sustainability is important to keep quality. However, every big open source software project started in personal or small voluntary community. I do not agree to raise up local community requirements, because no one has enough resources to do so. Ultimately, government or NPO/NGO would be obliged to assure the quality, but government do not work without proven merits on it. I am talking about feasibility to make an NPO to maintain openEHR.jp within our Japanese community and we will have an pre-meeting in these weeks. I am an optimist and an evangelist of open source software movement. If someone think our artefacts lack something, he/she would join us to fix it like Wikipedia. In my experience on open source software community, good projects have power to attract to manage, and I also believe openEHR is enough good to collect people. The ideal proof would be 'government proof' or 'government authored committee poof'. 'Community proof' could provide some indication to decision for developers and clinicians. Actually, there are not so many Japanese translated archetypes, I am not afraid to maintain them. I would be very happy to fill up my capacity to deal such proof. Best regards, Shinji Kobayashi 2012/1/17 Jussara jussara.macedo at gmail.com: Funny, that coincidentally IHTSDO sent today an email recruiting someone of its community to a new job position ?of content change coordinator, someone to manage the end to end process of any change of snomed ct, including mapping to Spanish ?and other languages and special country extensions. Quality assurance of mappings and translations are crucial to the success of any federated initiative like ours. IHTSDO is an example how hard can it be to work in a distributed, multilingual and multicultural environment. They have been developing tools ?and lots, lots of policies to make of Snomed ct a universal clinical reference terminology. So far, everybody knows, they are still far from it and the organization faces ?a lot of criticism because of the poor outcomes. To delegate the governance of archetype translations ?to the localization committee is really a good idea, Shinji, but again, the worst is not to translate, it's to maintain. Without a sustainable business model, that assures resources to us to have ?someone, and not a voluntary committee, in charge of managing the whole process, I'm afraid this process could lack on ?continuity and quality. ?I am the meaning (and I think Koray too), that the localization committee first task is to seek for sponsors for our national chapter. Long-term sustainability is my main concern. I don't think we should already commit to take over ?( huge) tasks like that. Not before we have governance of all process. There are some many issues that have arisen since we began to discuss the new business model and federation issues, that I think our unconference late this year should be take place earlier. Governance and not technical aspects are ?for us, countries that want to adopt openEHR as the national reference, the main issue we'd like that the localization committee could discuss now, because all the other things depend on it. Regards Jussara R?tzsch Director, OpenEHR Foundation Sent from my iPad On 17/01/2012, at 02:21, Heather Leslie heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com wrote: I think it an excellent idea that the localisation committees take on responsibility for initial translations and subsequent validation of translation thru reviews. Always happy to delegate. Let me know when Japan is ready to go:) And in the case of families of languages, perhaps these localisation committees can collaborate to solve our translation burden - to seek efficiencies instead of everyone reinventing the wheel for each translation. Rega Heather -Original Message- From: openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Shinji KOBAYASHI Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2012 2:48 PM To: For openEHR clinical discussions Subject: Re: Translation approaches Hi Heather and all, I think translation is only one of the alternative concepts for the original. Validation for translated artefacts is much controversial, because there are many answers for it and no perfect answer especially in subjective matters. Terminology system provides most possible candidate in semantics, but it is limited as Thomas Beale said. Each localisation committee could be engaged in translation management to add some proof of validity. What about such community proof for? Best regards, Shinji Kobayashi 2012/1/17 Heather Leslie heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com: I don't think there is any doubt that the original language is 'king' - after all in captures the intent of the authors best. Translations ?are ideally added after the archetype is stable and has been published. We saw a perfect
Translation approaches
Hi Jussara, In Japan, the government have also appealed to promote open source software, but they say OSS would not be applied because of lack of big company supprot by the same mouth, too. They have tendency to believe US big company rather than Japanese serious community. Otherwise, only I can do is to publish my artefacts with open source software condition to be available for everyone and I think I have responsibility to my artefacts under Apache 2 license condition. If I thought I have responsibility to 'harakiri' on my aretefacts, I cannot do anything and others, too. I would take over this the next Japanese pre-meeting. Big company support is very attractive, but sometimes it is beginning of death of community. Best regards, Shinji 2012/1/17 Jussara macedo jussara.macedo at gmail.com: Hi Shinji I?m glad to find other evangelists of OpenEHR cause! I?m doing that for past eight years in Brazil, and apparently it has worked because Brazil is officialy adopting both archetypes as aslo OpenEHR RM officialy in our national ehealth program. But just because of that my responsiblility has grown exponentially and I have to make sure that OpenEHR will be a stable, sustainable? and business driven organization. Pleople who criticize this option (not only HL7ers) says that to adopt openEHR is risky, because it?s a voluntary organization who hasn?t support of big players (Other open sources initiatives are supported by big companies, like Oracle for instance, or even by government, like here in Brazil, where the government has an opensource policy).? The decision of the foundation to change its business model was among other things to raise support for our evangelists from the communities where they pray... It?s not possible for one person? that isn?t supported by his employer or by academia to dedicate her/his time to do, for instance, quality assurance. You? know that the main reason we have so few archetypes already published it?s because only? a few people are de facto commited to this task. I think the quality assurance should be one? job of the operational group that? will do paid work for the foundation. That means a work for the foundation and not for a committee. Like Apache, we must have get support and who else besides government or big comapnies can do that? Once again I?m using IHTSDO, which is totally supported by governments as an example. It cannot be a perfect one, but it?s better than every other SDO (which, as a matter of fact also live of government grants, don?t they) Regards Jussara On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Shinji KOBAYASHI skoba at moss.gr.jp wrote: Hi Jussara, Yes, sustainability is important to keep quality. However, every big open source software project started in personal or small voluntary community. I do not agree to raise up local community requirements, because no one has enough resources to do so. Ultimately, government or NPO/NGO would be obliged to assure the quality, but government do not work without proven merits on it. I am talking about feasibility to make an NPO to maintain openEHR.jp within our Japanese community and we will have an pre-meeting in these weeks. I am an optimist and an evangelist of open source software movement. If someone think our artefacts lack something, he/she would join us to fix it like Wikipedia. In my experience on open source software community, good projects have power to attract to manage, and I also believe openEHR is enough good to collect people. The ideal proof would be 'government proof' or 'government authored committee poof'. 'Community proof' could provide some indication to decision for developers and clinicians. Actually, there are not so many Japanese translated archetypes, I am not afraid to maintain them. I would be very happy to fill up my capacity to deal such proof. Best regards, Shinji Kobayashi 2012/1/17 Jussara jussara.macedo at gmail.com: Funny, that coincidentally IHTSDO sent today an email recruiting someone of its community to a new job position ?of content change coordinator, someone to manage the end to end process of any change of snomed ct, including mapping to Spanish ?and other languages and special country extensions. Quality assurance of mappings and translations are crucial to the success of any federated initiative like ours. IHTSDO is an example how hard can it be to work in a distributed, multilingual and multicultural environment. They have been developing tools ?and lots, lots of policies to make of Snomed ct a universal clinical reference terminology. So far, everybody knows, they are still far from it and the organization faces ?a lot of criticism because of the poor outcomes. To delegate the governance of archetype translations ?to the localization committee is really a good idea, Shinji, but again, the worst is not to translate, it's to maintain. Without a sustainable business model
Outcomes conclusions of the openEHR course in spanish ( ideas for the future)
Hi Pablo, and all I perfectly agree your idea. I have thought as you mentioned. I am planning my tool-chains on my Ruby implementation, too. Certification criteria are very difficult to evaluate. Training course would be a homework to localize. Shinji Kobayashi 2012/1/4 pablo pazos pazospablo at hotmail.com: Hi everyone, Recently we have ended the first edition of the course with a huge success. And now we are thinking about the next steps to take. Here is a post on my blog about the conclusions and future actions:?http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/2012/01/conclusiones-del-curso-de-openehr-en.html (yo can see it in english by clicking ENGLISH on the top right corner of the blog). I want to share with the community a couple of ideas mentioned there. It would be very nice to know what you think. openEHR certification: The first idea is on standarizing openEHR training, and to think about an openEHR certification. I think this could be very good for the community and for the openEHR organization too. It could be possible to create a mail list for openEHR trainers (openehr-trainers at openehr.org)? So we could discuss about the topics and ways of evaluation, and come out with an standard minimal program to all openEHR courses. If we reach a standard minimal program for openEHR courses, could we get formal support from openEHR.org to issue internationally valid openEHR certificates? (obviously this is a question for the future, but IMO we need to start thinking about it now). 10 projects to adopt openEHR: We thought about 10 projects (or so) in two areas: software and clinical modeling. Because openEHR propose a tool-chain based process of creating EHRs, we need to have each one of the links of that chain in order to adopt and implement openEHR easily. Now there is a little tooling available, and some of it is not open source. In projects at a national level we need to use open source software, because each country will need to make it's own customizations to each tool. In the other hand, we need to model other things that are clinical knowledge too, like processes and rules to enable CDS, in order to support full EHR implementation (e.g. I think we could recommend ways to express rules based on archetype ids and paths, and create software tools to support that specification, but we need to work the openEHR services specs first). There is a diagram on my blog post that shows the tools we propose to 1. develope if there is no tool that support its functionality or it's closed-source, 2. improve the current open source tools. On the clinical modeling side, we have engaged doctors and nurses on the creation and translation of archetypes. Now there are two of our students that already commited archetypes to the CKM: Dr. Domingo Liotta and Dr. Leonardo Der Jachadurian. I hope we could propose to create prototypes of those projects in out local universities and coordinate the projects so we do not overlap each other, with the objective of completing the tool chain with open source developments. What do you think? -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
Question to clinical modellers: are you usually online when you're working?
Hi Seref, I always on-line when I consider clinical models. I need massive information around clinical concepts, medical validity, terminology, meta data, information technology around modeling, etc. Tweeting is sometimes good clue for breakthrough. BTW, aren't you really interested in Web tools? Best regards, Shinji 2011/12/22 Seref Arikan serefarikan at kurumsalteknoloji.com: Greetings, I would like to get the opinion of clinical modelling community about the requirement of being online. This is not a question about using web based tools. Even if you're using a modelling tool that does not require a browser, would it be a problem for you if the tool required that you are online? There are some quite convenient features that I would like to think I can introduce to modelling tools, but the problem is, some of these features may require lots of computing power, even special hardware in some cases, or they may simply be too large or tricky to deploy. Apple's recently released Siri, the voice recognition feature for iPhone 4s is a quite good example for the type of requirement I'm talking about. It helps in some cases, but the processing power requirements and quite possibly the mechanics of machine learning requires that Siri does its work using Apple's servers. Would this kind of requirement for modelling tools be a serious problem for you? I'd appreciate your feedback. Best regards Seref ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
[openEHR-announce] CIMI group goes with openEHR archetypes UML profile
Just translated to Japanese. http://openehr.jp/news/19 Cheers, Shinji 2011/12/14 Stef Verlinden stef at vivici.nl: Congratulations to all who made this possible and to ourselves This is a crucial 'breaktrough' which will pave the way towards future proof health records which will be widely accepted and used. Cheers, Stef Begin doorgestuurd bericht: Van: Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com Onderwerp: [openEHR-announce] CIMI group goes with openEHR archetypes UML profile Datum: 14 december 2011 10:38:14 GMT+01:00 Aan: openehr-announce openehr-announce at openehr.org [press release from the CIMI group] The Clinical Information Modeling Initiative is an international collaboration that is dedicated to providing a common format for detailed specifications for the representation of health information content so that semantically interoperable information may be created and shared in health records, messages and documents. CIMI has been holding meetings in various locations around the world since July, 2011. All funding and resources for these meetings have been provided by the participants. At its most recent meeting in London, 29 November - 1 December 2011, the group agreed on the following principles and approach. Principles 1.?CIMI specifications will be freely available to all. The initial use cases will focus on the requirements of organisations involved in providing, funding, monitoring or governing healthcare and to providers of healthcare IT and healthcare IT standards as well as to national eHealth programs, professional organisations, health providers and clinical system developers. 2.?CIMI is committed to making these specifications available in a number of formats, beginning with the Archetype Definition Language (ADL) from the openEHR Foundation (ISO 13606.2) and the Unified Modeling Language (UML) from the Object Management Group (OMG) with the intent that the users of these specifications can convert them into their local formats. 3.?CIMI is committed to transparency in its work product and process. Approach ADL 1.5 will be the initial formalism for representing clinical models in the repository. CIMI will use the openEHR constraint model (Archetype Object Model:AOM). Modifications will be required and will be delivered by CIMI members on a frequent basis. A set of UML stereotypes, XMI specifications and transformations will be concurrently developed using UML 2.0 and OCL as the constraint language. A Work Plan for how the AOM and target reference models will be maintained and updated will be developed and approved by the end of January 2012. ?Lessons learned from the development and implementation of the HL7 Clinical Statement Pattern and HL7 RIM as well as from the Entry models of 13606, openEHR and the SMART (Substitutable Medical Apps, Reusable Technologies) initiative will inform baseline inputs into this process. A plan for establishing a repository to maintain these models will continue to be developed by the group at its meeting in January. Representatives from the following organizations participated in the construction of this statement of principles and plan B2i Healthcare www.B2international.com Cambio Healthcare Systems www.cambio.se Canada Health Infoway/Inforoute Sant? Canada www.infoway-inforoute.ca CDISC www.cdisc.org Electronic Record Services www.e-recordservices.eu EN 13606 Association www.en13606.org GE Healthcare www.gehealthcare.com HL7 www.hl7.org IHTSDO www.ihtsdo.org Intermountain Healthcare www.ihc.com JP Systems www.jpsys.com Kaiser Permanente www.kp.org Mayo Clinic www.mayoclinic.com MOH Holdings Singapore www.moh.com.sg National Institutes of Health (USA) www.nih.gov NHS Connecting for Health www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk Ocean Informatics www.oceaninformatics.com openEHR Foundation www.openehr.org Results4Care www.results4care.nl SMART www.smartplatforms.org South Korea Yonsei University www.yonsei.ac.kr/eng Tolven www.tolven.org Veterans Health Administration (USA) www.va.gov/health Further Information In the future CIMI will provide information publicly on the Internet. For immediate further information, contact Stan Huff (stan.huff at imail.org) ___ openEHR-announce mailing list openEHR-announce at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-announce ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
Archetype licensing
Hi Sam and Everyone, I think we had enough discussion about licensing for the artefacts, archetypes and templates and we cannot get conclusion without calling for votes. JIRA vote plugins seems available for this vote. https://studio.plugins.atlassian.com/wiki/display/VOTE/JIRA+Voters+and+Watcher+Plugin https://studio.plugins.atlassian.com/wiki/display/JOUT/Poll+Plugin Best regards, Shinji 2011/9/20 Sam Heard sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com: Hi Everyone The Board discussed the licensing arrangements regarding the archetypes held on openEHR.org. The principles are: The Foundation wishes to ensure that all archetypes contributed to the openEHR Foundation are available without restriction to others to use to improve health care and eHealth That the semantic expression of the content is what is deemed to be ?collectively owned? by clinicians and other domain experts. We have seen some heated debate and concerns by others and it would appear that we are at a sort of stalemate. The alternatives that seem sensible are: 1.? To continue with the current approach: to require transfer of copyright to the openEHR Foundation by any agency contributing the archetype or template 2.? To request that the archetype is contributed under the CC-BY license (with a permissions clause saying what attribution applies to) 3.? To request that the archetype is contributed under the CC-BY-SA license (with a permissions clause saying what share alike applies to) 4.? To request that the archetype is contributed under the CC0 (public domain) license a.? See: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 The consensus of the Board at the last meeting was that our intention in transferring copyright was to ensure that the use of archetypes could not be restricted by third parties. The other CC licenses do make demands on the users and will require permission clauses. Erik and Thomas are concerned about the effect of SA on commercial uptake, BY has its own problems for derived works with describing what attribution is required. So, we are asking the list, what do you think about having no copyright for archetypes contributed to the CKM? Would this make them more attractive for users? Would people who contribute them be less likely to do so? Cheers, Sam ___ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
short presentation on openEHR Tool chain
Thank you, Tom. I will add this slides for our congress, JCMI 2010 in Nov 20, which Dipak will join. Best regards, Shinji 2010/11/17 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com: On the Getting started page, a new presentation is available explaining the openEHR knowledge development tool chain. It is less than 10 slides, and since quite a few people have requested it after recent presentations, I have made it generally available. Direct links: PPT, PDF - thomas beale ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
