Re: Blockchain

2017-11-15 Thread Bert Verhees
Hi Pablo, You are answering my initial question from last Monday. But the discussion went in the way, also by me, if we need blockchain at all. The initial question is the most important, and I think you are right in your answer. Bert Op 16 nov. 2017 04:02 schreef "Pablo Pazos"

Re: Scenarios for change type "deleted"

2017-11-15 Thread Pablo Pazos
@all I'll try to summarize all your comments into a requirements document on the wiki, besides opinions and interpretations, openEHR has to satisfy these use cases. @Thomas please check my answer from Nov 4th, a. we might need to add more change types, b. maybe separate strict change types from

Re: Blockchain

2017-11-15 Thread Pablo Pazos
IMHO, 1. BC is not under the scope of the openEHR specs, if it's useful, can be implemented by companies/developers over any system, including openEHR compliant systems. I don't think we need to make any statements about BC from the foundation. If we follow that path, we might need to release

Re: Blockchain

2017-11-15 Thread Bert Verhees
Thomas, I shouldn't have written my previous reply, I try again. I stuck on elaborating on unsafe systems. What I wanted to say is that systems are not safe and never will be safe. Safety must come from the data, every event must be in an unbreakable chain, this chain must also include a digital

Re: Blockchain

2017-11-15 Thread Bert Verhees
That is okay, Gerard, no need to be very sorry. It is just a discussion. Exchanging opinions. What do you think about the passages I mentioned in the same document on page 12 and 13 Op 16 nov. 2017 00:59 schreef "GF" : > Bert, > > I’m very sorry. > What I wrote I found it at

Re: Blockchain

2017-11-15 Thread GF
Bert, I’m very sorry. What I wrote I found it at their summary (page 8) of the NICTIZ document. Of course it is my selection from that text. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 gf...@luna.nl > On 16 Nov 2017, at 00:53, Bert Verhees wrote: > > Dear Gerard, Nictiz published

Re: Blockchain

2017-11-15 Thread Bert Verhees
Dear Gerard, Nictiz published hundreds of pages about blockchain. So if it is a hype (which it is), then Nictiz is playing an important role in that. You cannot summarize those hundreds of pages to a few words and then state that that reflects the opinion of Nictiz. Blockchain is a comprehensive

Re: Blockchain

2017-11-15 Thread GF
A EJRC document about Blockchain in education: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC108255/jrc108255_blockchain_in_education(1).pdf Gerard Freriks +31

Re: Blockchain

2017-11-15 Thread GF
Hi, A blockchain[1] [2] [3] – originally block chain[4]

Re: Blockchain

2017-11-15 Thread Bert Verhees
There are so many privacy breaches in medical data, hacked accounts, data-leaks, wacky account rules, social hacking, temporary personal from employment agencies, no logging on access to systems, systems standing open and the nurse doing something else. A GP can call a specialist, it is very

Re: Blockchain

2017-11-15 Thread Thomas Beale
On 14/11/2017 14:50, Bert Verhees wrote: I think we are heading an era where it can be impossible to tell where from and/or when data are received /created and which event created the data or made the data cause to interchange when the data do not tell us themselves on an accountable way.