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

Hi, the uid might be assigned by the archetype editor, before uploading the adl into the ckm, so this can be a bug on the AE. Sent from my LG Mobile -- Original message--From: Barnet David (HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE ...Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2015 10:31To:

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

Hi Dave and all, This is the Java XML Serialiser generating XML from ADL on the fly in the CKM. The archetype editor is doing it "your" way as well, and I would assume this is correct. I am a bit surprised this is happening, because I am pretty sure we looked in depth at any the

Re: Advantage of ISO

Again. Answer the question ‘Who owns the specifications of openEHR, looking at the quotes I provided? The answer is: UCL owns the IP rights and licensing conditions. Members of, participants in, openEHR gremia, do not. And that is why I call openEHR specifications proprietary. According to the

RE: Advantage of ISO

I think Silje’s explanation is crystal clear on this matter – so what exactly your problem is Gerard with openEHR? Can you give a concrete example where other SDOs you mention are better placed wrt to freedom? Cheers, -koray From: openEHR-technical

Re: Advantage of ISO

Gerard, is there a relation between the introduction of AOM2.0, and the coincidence of the renewal process of ISO13606, which has the potential that AOM2.0 will be a part of the renewed ISO13606, and your strong effort to make us aware of your concern about IP risk in using OpenEHR related

Re: Advantage of ISO

So you are saying that you need a license to build an openehr implementation? That is very strange that several parties I know work without license except an open source license, and that for years. How do you explain that? Do you think the "owner" is sleeping? Should code24, marand, Pablo,

Re: Advantage of ISO

Gerard, you write "UCL owns the IP rights and licensing conditions. Members of, participants in, openEHR gremia, do not." Can you explain what you mean, what is the difference in rights between UCL and all those companies which are using it on an open source license? Which right does UCL have,

Re: Advantage of ISO

Greetings, Just to clarify my understanding of your understanding of the term: would you say HL7 and Snomed CT are proprietary ? On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 6:29 AM, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: > *What do I misunderstand?* > > The definition of ‘proprietary’ according to GOOGLE

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 03-09-15 09:10, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: openEHR has one owner. CEN and ISO have members (countries) that are, all together, the owner. This is not true, Gerard, ISO has a statement on its website, that there can be IP which is not known about. So, even an idea in a ISO standard can

RE: Advantage of ISO

I think that definition doesn't apply to a standard / spec. IMO when we talk about standards, we focus on the ability to use it and let others use it, and the constraints / freedoms in that area, not in who is the owner. -- Kind regards, Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez http://cabolabs.com From:

Re: Advantage of ISO

I think that definitions are generally valid. > On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:38 AM, pablo pazos wrote: > > I think that definition doesn't apply to a standard / spec. IMO when we talk > about standards, we focus on the ability to use it and let others use it, and > the

Re: Advantage of ISO

As said, publishing Open Source does not protect against IP. The Open Source is just protection about the publishing itself, not about the ideas that are published. There are rumors, and there are things that can be done. For example, reasoning: - AOM1.4 has been an ISO standard for years, so

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 03-09-15 09:07, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: I think that definitions are generally valid. Gerard, I think you know, you be ignorant and warning at the same moment. I have good news for you (because ISO13606 is using parts of the AOM) and for all of us. There cannot any effective IP be

Re: Advantage of ISO

I think that it is NOT a misuse. openEHR has one owner. CEN and ISO have members (countries) that are, all together, the owner. This a huge difference, don’t you think? Gerard > On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:48 AM, Bakke, Silje Ljosland > wrote: > > This is a

RE: Advantage of ISO

No. The Creative Commons licenses guarantees the free (as in beer) use and distribution of the specifications and the free (as in speech) use, distribution and improvement of the artifacts. This is what makes openEHR open and not proprietary. The organisation of the body holding the copyright

Re: Advantage of ISO

In the case of CEN, ISO, HL7, SNOMED all members are the owner. Gerard > On Sep 3, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Seref Arikan > wrote: > > Greetings, > Just to clarify my understanding of your understanding of the term: would you > say HL7 and Snomed CT are

Re: Advantage of ISO

Dear Stef, About homework: I’m not contending what you write. This discussion is about who owns the IP. And then my points about it are not with spoken. Gerard > On Sep 3, 2015, at 9:26 AM, Stef Verlinden > wrote: > > Hi Gerard, > > Please stop

Re: Advantage of ISO

In this particular case IP is held on specifications archetypes are making use of. It is about ownership of IP of BOTH the Reference Model and the AOM Gerard > On Sep 3, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Bert Verhees wrote: > > On 03-09-15 09:07, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: >> I

Re: Advantage of ISO

Gerard, the 'IP rights' are defined by the licences. You can read them here . The rights to use, copy and adapt are clearly defined, and include no curbs on freedom, and no requirement for payment. The only real requirement is that

Re: Advantage of ISO

My question was, what kind of IP. Ownership is not a legal term, you need to specify that. I explained there are two types of IP, which one is applies to OpenEHR? 1) Does the OpenEHR foundation hold copyright? 2) Does the OpenEHR foundation have patents which can be effected hold against the

Re: Advantage of ISO

On 03-09-15 13:02, "Gerard Freriks (privé)" wrote: This discussion is about who owns the IP. And then my points about it are not with spoken Which IP do you mean Gerard? The two kinds I know are not "owned" by the OpenEHR foundation. ___

A question about the XML schema for version 1.4 archetypes

I have a question about the XML schema for archetypes based on ADL version 1.4 The set of schemas we are using to validate XML archetype exports are 1.0.1 ETC.. The issue we are getting is that sometimes an archetype has a tag. All those downloaded from our CKM (ckm.hscic.gov.uk) have this

Re: Advantage of ISO

Definitions are context dependant, but that's not the point... you ignored the true argument about availavility and constraints/freedom to use. Sent from my LG Mobile -- Original message--From: Gerard Freriks (privé)Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2015 04:07To: For openEHR technical

Re: Advantage of ISO

Thanks for your response. Based on this response and another one you gave to Silje, do you think you could give a number of owners of a standard, which you'd consider to be sufficient to make a standard not proprietary? In layman terms: how many owners should a standard have so that you would not

Re: Advantage of ISO

Gerard, I am not sure why you are pursuing this line of argument. The only interesting question here is not about any 'owner', but about the 'credible maintainer'. For openly and freely licenced IP, this is all that practically matters - the capabilities and behaviours of the maintainer