Sent: Thursday, 22 March 2012 9:33 PM
To: OpenEHR clinical discussions; OpenEHR technical discussions
Subject: Archetype authoring attribution
Hello,
Back again with the licensing topic of archetypes, with a real use case.
We have been asked to help in creating a set of 13606
On 22/03/2012 12:03, David Moner wrote:
Hello,
Back again with the licensing topic of archetypes, with a real use case.
We have been asked to help in creating a set of 13606 archetypes for
breast and prostate cancer. Although they will probably incorporate
some new requirements, the main
Hello,
See in-line.
2012/3/22 Sam Heard sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com
Hi David
** **
As the aim for all is interoperability of these things, I would hope that
the information would be two way. I would suggest getting the new experts
to comment on CKM and then derive a 13606
On 23/03/2012 08:07, David Moner wrote:
There is no doubt about the attributions and original references that
must accompany the new archetypes (by the way, maybe in this sense the
archetype metadata could be improved. Diego Bosc? has been working on
this topic for his PhD).
I would be
Hi David,
Firs of all, leaving aside licensing issues and the eventual RM choice, I
would really appreciate working collaboratively on these models with your
clinical guys. I would be happy to do this via CKM if you felt that might
facilitate progress. As Sam says, lets make sure we keep the
Hello,
Back again with the licensing topic of archetypes, with a real use case.
We have been asked to help in creating a set of 13606 archetypes for breast
and prostate cancer. Although they will probably incorporate some new
requirements, the main source will be some of the openEHR archetypes
David,
openEHR:
Creative Commons license CC-BY-SA 2.0, applying to all openEHR.org achetypes
hosted at the openEHR Clinical Knowledge Manager (CKM).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
My simplistic understanding.
A derived work has to be derived.
So when you use the information and
7 matches
Mail list logo
