Bert Verhees wrote:
You refer to machine computer system interfaces and that these might
be proprietary. Yes they could and will.
But when the holy grail is about plug-and-play interoperability then
these interfaces (archetypes) must be free to use.
Gerard, how about SNOMED-tables,
Williamtfgoossen at cs.com wrote:
www.zorginformatiemodel.nl has about 85 stroke patient related
archetypes.
unfortunately most are in Dutch, but we have translated about 10 to
English now, most the simple ones or the ones that explain the
approach also in more technical way.
Key is the
Thomas Beale wrote:
Williamtfgoossen at cs.com wrote:
www.zorginformatiemodel.nl has about 85 stroke patient related
archetypes.
unfortunately most are in Dutch, but we have translated about 10 to
English now, most the simple ones or the ones that explain the
approach also in more technical
Williamtfgoossen at cs.com wrote:
In een bericht met de datum 8-1-2006 21:31:57 West-Europa
(standaardtijd), schrijft gfrer at luna.nl:
Information is exchanged in communities.All clinical information
belongs to the healthcare domain.
When clinical concept models (Archetypes) are
Je suis absente du bureau jusqu'au jeudi 4 mai 2006.
Sandrine Villaeys
www.zorginformatiemodel.nl has about 85 stroke patient related archetypes.
unfortunately most are in Dutch, but we have translated about 10 to English
now, most the simple ones or the ones that explain the approach also in more
technical way.
Key is the binding knowledge, variables, vocabulary,
Dear William,
My answer is:
The moment clinical concepts as defined by groups of clinicians are
proprietary it will be impossible to have any conversation.
The moment clinical concepts as defined by groups of clinicians using
archetypes it will be impossible to have any semantic
You refer to machine computer system interfaces and that these might
be proprietary. Yes they could and will.
But when the holy grail is about plug-and-play interoperability then
these interfaces (archetypes) must be free to use.
Gerard, how about SNOMED-tables, they are expensive, and many
Bert,
The example of SNOMED is a good one.
Looking at SNOMED we must ask the question:
Are words in a dictionary proprietary?
Do we have to pay for the use of these words in our conversations?
Of course the answer is: NO.
We have to pay for the medium: the book, the CD-ROM, the application.
Je suis absente du bureau jusqu'au jeudi 4 mai 2006.
Sandrine Villaeys
In een bericht met de datum 8-1-2006 21:31:57 West-Europa (standaardtijd),
schrijft gfrer at luna.nl:
Information is exchanged in communities.All clinical information belongs to
the healthcare domain.
When clinical concept models (Archetypes) are expressed using an Open
International
- Original Message -
From: Tim Cook twc...@shaw.ca
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 4:28 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Archetype Maintenance
David More wrote:
See short comments below.
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 20:17:31 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
Thinking about this a bit more, it occurs to me that simply having
archetype definitions mirrrored at lots of sites is a start, but it
isn't really enough. An archetype (and the reference model it
Gerard Freriks wrote:
Information is exchanged in communities.
All clinical information belongs to the healthcare domain.
When clinical concept models (Archetypes) are expressed using an Open
International Standard like the CEN/tc251 Archetypes,
both the Archetype expression and the
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060109/29fbeb80/attachment.pl
Tim Churches wrote:
Yes, fair enough. But the issue I was hinting at is that although the
openEHR technological developments aim to make systems which are
future-proof or at least more readily upgradable to meet future needs,
that promise will only be realised if end users have the necessary
- The following is an automated response
- to your message generated on behalf of rnardi at tin.it
Sono in Vacanza sino al 7 Gennaio 2006. Risponder? al mio ritorno.
I'm on Holiday until Jan, 07th 2006. I will answer to your message afterwards.
Tim Churches wrote:
- but the openEHR people seem to
be in denial about establishing the infrastructure to do itUntil this
ongoing
Governance is nailed, certain and ongoing over decades this idea won't work
IMVHO.
We'll have to disagree - the openEHR people do seem to be thinking
- The following is an automated response
- to your message generated on behalf of rnardi at tin.it
Sono in Vacanza sino al 7 Gennaio 2006. Risponder? al mio ritorno.
I'm on Holiday until Jan, 07th 2006. I will answer to your message afterwards.
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 07:49:02AM +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
Certainly most of us would like that to be true. I was just wondering
aloud whether it was true in a strict legal sense. I suspect that it is
an issue which requires expert legal advice, and the situation may be
subtely different
I presume this was posted here to get a reaction from someone in
openEHR, so I will briefly react...overall, Tim has given a pretty
reasonable airing of some of the important points for the future. To my
mind his claim of the possible lock-in of data is slightly
exaggeratedbut in any
Thomas Beale wrote:
Tim Churches wrote:
Furthermore, if you want to add to your data, you will need to be able
to modify the archetype definition used to store it. Thus, you will need
you cannot modify the definition of a released archetype. Well obviously
physically you could, but the
- The following is an automated response
- to your message generated on behalf of rnardi at tin.it
Sono in Vacanza sino al 7 Gennaio 2006. Risponder? al mio ritorno.
I'm on Holiday until Jan, 07th 2006. I will answer to your message afterwards.
- The following is an automated response
- to your message generated on behalf of rnardi at tin.it
Sono in Vacanza sino al 7 Gennaio 2006. Risponder? al mio ritorno.
I'm on Holiday until Jan, 07th 2006. I will answer to your message afterwards.
David More wrote:
See short comments below.
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 20:17:31 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
Thinking about this a bit more, it occurs to me that simply having
archetype definitions mirrrored at lots of sites is a start, but it
isn't really enough. An archetype (and the reference model it
David More wrote:
See short comments below.
On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 20:17:31 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
Thinking about this a bit more, it occurs to me that simply having
archetype definitions mirrrored at lots of sites is a start, but it
isn't really enough. An archetype (and the reference model it
What XML DTD's or XML-schema's are for characters/text
are
Archetypes for Information.
Therefore both Information and the Archetype much be stored locally.
Gerard
--
--
Gerard Freriks, MD
Convenor CEN/TC251 WG1
TNO Quality of Life
Wassenaarseweg 56
Leiden
PostBox 2215
22301CE Leiden
The
Information is exchanged in communities.
All clinical information belongs to the healthcare domain.
When clinical concept models (Archetypes) are expressed using an Open
International Standard like the CEN/tc251 Archetypes,
both the Archetype expression and the constituting clinical
- The following is an automated response
- to your message generated on behalf of rnardi at tin.it
Sono in Vacanza sino al 7 Gennaio 2006. Risponder? al mio ritorno.
I'm on Holiday until Jan, 07th 2006. I will answer to your message afterwards.
If enough Archetypes are produced by scientific communities and
associations and published IP free,
then what is the problem?
Gerard
-- private --
Gerard Freriks, arts
Huigsloterdijk 378
2158 LR Buitenkaag
The Netherlands
T: +31 252 544896
M: +31 654 792800
On 8-jan-2006, at 21:49, Tim
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 10:16 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
Gerard Freriks gfrer at luna.nl wrote:
If enough Archetypes are produced by scientific communities and
associations and published IP free,
then what is the problem?
By IP free I assume that you mean published under a suitably
31 matches
Mail list logo
