Feedback on an archetype governance issue please
the same CKM internal ID including directly preserving all provenance and associated details accumulated to date. o Implementers: will have to modify their systems with the new archetype ID and structure o Knowledge Governance: Another semantically clean way to ensure that the CKM pool of archetypes is representing academic best practice. . Option 3: Keep the current archetype ID (lab_test.v1), update the Concept name only to 'Pathology Test Result', then upload the content of the Pathology Test Result' archetype as a new iteration of the lab_test.v1 o Implementers: will have to modify their systems with the new archetype structure only. o Knowledge Governance: The structure of the archetype represents academic best practice. There is a mismatch between the archetype ID (which effectively has no semantics) and the Concept Name - this may cause some confusion, especially with clinicians. We might have to explain this mismatch for a very long time and it may be perpetuated throughout other related CKM national instances! This option will result in a non-alignment between the NEHTA CKM and the openEHR CKM. While it is probably inevitable that this kind of diversion of models will happen over time, the question is whether this is acceptable or desirable in this relatively early phase of model development and governance. . Option 4: Same as Option 3 but upload the 'Pathology Test Result' archetype as a new version, ie lab_testv2, even though the lab_test.v1 has never been published. o Implementers: will have to modify their systems with the new archetype ID and structure. The new version will be a visual indication of significant change in the structure of the archetype. o Knowledge Governance: As with Option 3, the structure of the archetype represents academic best practice, but the ID (which effectively has no semantics) and the Concept Name are still mismatching - this may cause some confusion, especially with clinicians. Creating a new version in this situation breaks our fledgling governance policy principles, but may be viewed as a pragmatic solution. As in Option 3, there will again be a non-alignment between the NEHTA CKM and the openEHR CKM resulting from this approach. While it is probably inevitable that this kind of diversion of models will happen over time, the question is whether this is acceptable or desirable in this relatively early phase of model development and governance. Needless to say this has caused some lively discussion amongst those I have asked so far. There has been no real consensus arising from those limited discussions, hence my request for feedback from the broader community. Teasing it out we are dealing with a number of issues tied in together: . We need to manage inclusion of breaking changes to a draft archetype that has probably been implemented in a number of systems, despite the draft state. We are pretty sure that this situation is not unique and we will need to apply government principles here - either keep it as v1 draft (as justified by a 'draft model users beware' notion) or update it to v2. This is covered by Options 3 4 . We want to potentially change the Concept Name of the archetype, and it possibly makes sense to change the Archetype ID to keep them aligned - this additional change provides us with Options 1 and 2 above, in addition to Options 3 4. There are tensions. We have to make pragmatic decisions where there is real impact on implementers, we want to develop and apply governance principles systematically, and at the same time we have a responsibility to set these models up to be as rigorous and semantically sensible as we can, while we can. We know that over time, we will have to make compromises - the art (or science) is working out how much compromise and when! Many thanks Heather and Ian Dr Heather Leslie MBBS FRACGP FACHI Director of Clinical Modelling http://www.oceaninformatics.com/ Ocean Informatics Phone (Aust) +61 (0)418 966 670 Skype - heatherleslie Twitter - @omowizard -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120727/54e183dc/attachment-0001.html
AUTO: Amnon Shabo is out of the office. (returning 05/08/2012)
I am out of the office until 05/08/2012. I have no access to IBM email during this time. For any other urgent issue, please send a text message to my cell phone at +972-54-4714070 Thanks, Amnon. Note: This is an automated response to your message Feedback on an archetype governance issue please sent on 27/7/2012 3:28:36. This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away.
Small CKM bug
Pablo, you can just click on any of the other buttons after you logged in and the rest of the buttons will appear as well Sebastian On 27.07.2012 03:33, pablo pazos wrote: Hi, When I'm seeing an archetype without signing in, and later I sign in, the archetype view (the one I'm seeing) is not updated with the edition buttons (discussion, review, ...). When I open the archetype again, the buttons are there (I'm still logged in). -- 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 lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org -- *Dr. Sebastian Garde* /Dr. sc. hum., Dipl.-Inform. Med, FACHI/ Senior Developer Ocean Informatics Skype: gardeseb -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120727/44d955a7/attachment.html
Feedback on an archetype governance issue please
will happen over time, the question is whether this is acceptable or desirable in this relatively early phase of model development and governance. ? Option 4: Same as Option 3 but upload the ?Pathology Test Result? archetype as a new version, ie lab_testv2, even though the lab_test.v1 has never been published. o Implementers: will have to modify their systems with the new archetype ID and structure. The new version will be a visual indication of significant change in the structure of the archetype. o Knowledge Governance: As with Option 3, the structure of the archetype represents academic best practice, but the ID (which effectively has no semantics) and the Concept Name are still mismatching ? this may cause some confusion, especially with clinicians. Creating a new version in this situation breaks our fledgling governance policy principles, but may be viewed as a pragmatic solution. As in Option 3, there will again be a non-alignment between the NEHTA CKM and the openEHR CKM resulting from this approach. While it is probably inevitable that this kind of diversion of models will happen over time, the question is whether this is acceptable or desirable in this relatively early phase of model development and governance. Needless to say this has caused some lively discussion amongst those I have asked so far. There has been no real consensus arising from those limited discussions, hence my request for feedback from the broader community. Teasing it out we are dealing with a number of issues tied in together: ? We need to manage inclusion of breaking changes to a draft archetype that has probably been implemented in a number of systems, despite the draft state. We are pretty sure that this situation is not unique and we will need to apply government principles here ? either keep it as v1 draft (as justified by a ?draft model users beware? notion) or update it to v2. This is covered by Options 3 4 ? We want to potentially change the Concept Name of the archetype, and it possibly makes sense to change the Archetype ID to keep them aligned ? this additional change provides us with Options 1 and 2 above, in addition to Options 3 4. There are tensions. We have to make pragmatic decisions where there is real impact on implementers, we want to develop and apply governance principles systematically, and at the same time we have a responsibility to set these models up to be as rigorous and semantically sensible as we can, while we can. We know that over time, we will have to make compromises ? the art (or science) is working out how much compromise and when! Many thanks Heather and Ian Dr Heather Leslie MBBS FRACGP FACHI Director of Clinical Modelling Ocean Informaticshttp://www.oceaninformatics.com/ Phone (Aust) +61 (0)418 966 670 Skype - heatherleslie Twitter - @omowizard ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.orgmailto:openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120727/77d24007/attachment-0001.html
Intelligent Data Processing on Health (IDP)
The 29th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering Workshop onIntelligent Data Processing on Health (IDP)April 8-11, 2013, Brisbane, Australiahttp://www.icde2013.org/index.htmlHealth data, although widely and diligently collected, continue to be under-utilisedfor research and evaluation. How to make use of the enormous amount of health dataefficiently and effectively is one of fundamental issues that health researchersencounter today. Such research holds a great promise to improve the quality of patientcare, prevent potential medical errors, and reduce healthcare cost. To accomplish thisobjective, the collaborations of both practical applications and theoretical researchwill be essential. Organized in conjunction with the 29th IEEE International Conferenceon Data Engineering (ICDE 2013), the purpose of IDP??13 is to provide a forum for discussionand interaction among researchers with interests in the cutting edge issues of informationTechniques in Health.TOPICS:Papers are welcome from topics related to various data- and knowledge-based approaches inhealth domains. Research topics of interest include, but are not limited to:- Electronic Health Record Applications and Standards-Intelligent health records- Knowledge Representation and Reasoning- Clinical decision support- Health information modelling and integration- Health information retrieval, analysis, visualization and prediction- Health knowledge discovery and text mining- Ontology and semantic Web services- Security, privacy and trust in health domain- Lessons learned from health information system implementationIMPORTANT DATES:November 01, 2012 Paper Submission DeadlineDecember 10, 2012 Notification of acceptanceDecember 21, 2012 Author-registration/Final camera-ready paper dueApril 8 or 12, 2013 Workshop DaySUBMISSION INFORMATION:Each submission will be evaluated for acceptability by at least three membersof the Program Committee. Decisions about acceptance will be based on relevanceto the workshop theme, originality, potential significance, topicality and clarity.For accepted papers, we require that at least one of the submitting authors mustbe a registered participant at the ICDE 2013 Conference, and committed to attendthe IDP??13 Workshop.Submissions to the Workshop must be formatted in the IEEE camera-ready format.Submissions must not exceed 8 pages, including figures. Submissions exceeding thislimit will not be reviewed.Following the general acceptance rules of the ICDE 2013 conference, papers that, at the time of submission, are under review for or have already been published in or accepted for publication in a journal or another conference will not be accepted to the IDP??13 workshop.PROGRAM CO-CHAIRS:Chaoyi Pang, CSIRO, Australia chaoyi.pang at csiro.auHaolan Zhang, NIT, Zhejiang University, China haolan.zhang at nit.zju.edu.cnJunhu Wang, Griffith University, Australia j.wang at griffith.edu.auIntended PROGRAM COMMITTEE:Sergio Alvarez, Boston College, United StatesPhilip Azariadis, University of the Aegean, GreeceR??mi Bastide Jean-Francois Champollion University, FranceChristoph M. Friedrich University of Applied Science and Arts Dortmund, GermanyMizuho Iwaihara Waseda University, JapanStefan JablonskiUniversity of Bayreuth, GermanySebasti??n Ventura SotoUniversity of Cordoba. SpainJudy C. R. Tseng Chung Hua University, TaiwanJenny Zhang RMIT University, AustraliaGong Zhiguo University of MacauYongluan Zhou University of Southern Denmark -- 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 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120727/58e7cf41/attachment.html
