On 11/02/2010 07:45, Andrew McIntyre wrote:
I am still interested to see what the concrete objections to the
openEHR reference
model classes as the basis forDCM archetypes are.
openEHR is a EHR system and its archetypes often include things like
Result identifiers
.
To: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: Re: Fw: Interoperability with HL7
It is imperative that DCM's are absolutely free to use and in the public
domain. CEN/ISO and ANSI assure that with the standardisation IP rules in
general.
DCM's must be absolutely free from IP problems, well maintained
Re: Fw: Interoperability with HL7
On 10/02/2010 12:00, Andrew McIntyre wrote:
I think a DCM format should exclude the administrative attributes,
such as Author and Observation Time
Andrew,
I could agree in principle, but how could Observation time
Hi!
Tom Beale wrote:
is DCM now trying to be totally model-agnostic?
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
Unless everyone wants to throw away their model and start afresh it has to be.
[...]
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
The concept of two level modelling perhaps needs to be 3 level,
1. Information System
2.
As I have probably said before, I don't have the time or expertise to
personally work out questions of CC-BY versus CC-BY-SA, I just have one
request: could people who have points to make about this consider updating the
page
Dear Andrew,
See some reactions in the text below.
Gerard
as former chairman of CEN/tc251 wg1, responsible for the EN13606
Begin forwarded message:
The biggest issues with inter-operability relate to the use of Semantic
attributes in both HL7 and openEHR.
They are not really semantic
Hi Gerard,
I agree that we need a DCM model that is free of association with a
specific messaging/document specification, but is transformable into
the desired one in a reliable manner.
Currently EN 13606-2 is the closest to this, but because it is linked
to its own EHR reference model, is not
Op 10 feb 2010, om 11:37 heeft Gerard Freriks het volgende geschreven:
It is imperative that DCM's are absolutely free to use and in the public
domain. CEN/ISO and ANSI assure that with the standardisation IP rules in
general.
DCM's must be absolutely free from IP problems, well maintained
discussions openehr-technical at chime.ucl.ac.uk
Onderwerp: Antw.: Interoperability with HL7
Op 10 feb 2010, om 11:37 heeft Gerard Freriks het volgende geschreven:
It is imperative that DCM's are absolutely free to use and in the public
domain. CEN/ISO and ANSI assure that with the standardisation
It is imperative that DCM's are absolutely free to use and in the
public domain. CEN/ISO and ANSI assure that with the standardisation
IP rules in general.
DCM's must be absolutely free from IP problems, well maintained in a
formal, flexible, organisation, owned and controlled by all that
Dear Stef,
It is simple.
Customers demand Archetypes that are completely free ti use in a commercial
product.
All openEHR artifacts have an IP owned by a a not-for-profit company with two
owners.
For academic use it is free. But for commercial use things are not free.
Archetypes/Templates and
Bert,
There is only one answer.
Hospitals we talk with have problems with the way IP is handled by openEHR.
IP owned by two organisations (One UCL and the other Ocean Informatics) they
consider not PUBLIC.
I agree that the form of the company is not the issue.
What is important who controls
Op 10 feb 2010, om 14:07 heeft Bert Verhees het volgende geschreven:
It is not the juridical status of a company that makes the difference for the
IP-status of something. If an organization is not-for-profit or for-profit,
both can issue all kinds of IP-licenses.
The company form has
Gerard,
It is possible to reject non-free archetypes and replace them by free
archetypes.
We have seen this mechanism many times, mostly the open standard wins,
even when it is technically slightly inferior, the openness is much more
important.
Than the non-free-snake will often byte its own
Stef,
It is a good step.
But not sufficient.
That OpenEHR artifacts are published with such a Creative Commons License
policy attached to it is a good thing, I agree.
But when a new Reference Model, Archetype Model, Template models change and are
published that decision is made by the owners
Op 10-02-10 15:35, Gerard Freriks schreef:
Stef,
It is a good step.
But not sufficient.
That OpenEHR artifacts are published with such a Creative Commons License
policy attached to it is a good thing, I agree.
But when a new Reference Model, Archetype Model, Template models change and
On 10/02/2010 12:00, Andrew McIntyre wrote:
I think a DCM format should exclude the administrative attributes,
such as Author and Observation Time
Andrew,
I could agree in principle, but how could Observation time be an
'adiministrative' attribute?
and leave those to the Information
On 10/02/2010 10:37, Gerard Freriks wrote:
It is imperative that DCM's are absolutely free to use and in the
public domain. CEN/ISO and ANSI assure that with the standardisation
IP rules in general.
DCM's must be absolutely free from IP problems, well maintained in a
formal, flexible,
On 10/02/2010 13:48, Stef Verlinden wrote:
Op 10 feb 2010, om 14:07 heeft Bert Verhees het volgende geschreven:
It is not the juridical status of a company that makes the difference
for the IP-status of something. If an organization is not-for-profit
or for-profit, both can issue all kinds
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100207/8dcdf7bc/attachment.html
Hi Andrew,
this description of 'semantic' attributes is quite useful. People should
indeed realise that the named attributes in various health reference
models are often semantic concepts that just happen to be defined in the
information model, not a terminology. The same occurs at the class
: Interoperability with HL7
On 29/01/2010 07:41, Alberto Moreno Conde wrote:
I would like to address the interoperability with the HL7 standards. As I
understand it is possible to map between OpenEHR to HL7 CDA, this allows us to
create systems that are based on the openEHR reference model compatible HL7
discussions openehr-technical at
chime.ucl.ac.uk
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:30:22 +
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
Subject: Re: Interoperability with HL7
On 29/01/2010 07:41, Alberto Moreno Conde wrote:
I would like to address the interoperability with the HL7 standards. As I
2010 23:30:22 +
*To: **MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from x-msg:
claiming to be* openehr-technical at openehr.org
*Subject: *Re: Interoperability with HL7
On 29/01/2010 07:41, Alberto Moreno Conde wrote:
I would like to address the interoperability with the HL7 standards
Based on Charlie's reply, maybe my own was not clear. openEHR is mostly
not about solving the problem of openEHR systems talkng to each other
(that is rare at this stage, as you might imagine; when it happens,
there is not much problem to solve, obviously - openEHR is a single data
standard),
Subject
l.ac.uk Re: Interoperability with HL7
02/01/2010 10:33
regarding any war - me neither ;-) Ed, I hope you see that it is
reasonable to respond in some way to disinformation like 'only use
openEHR if you are trying to talk to openEHR systems' - on an openEHR
list! Nearly the only problem of interest in openEHR is adding semantics
to existing
by: cc
openehr-technical
-bounces at chime.uc Subject
l.ac.uk Re: Interoperability with HL7
On 01/02/2010 17:07, William E Hammond wrote:
I like your reply. I am willing to commit to putting energy behind merging
al standards groups, probably under ISO.
*
Not wanting to be more of a trouble-maker than usual, but I would have
to say - if we could work this out together, let's
Subject
l.ac.uk Re: Interoperability with HL7
02/01/2010 01:01
, 01 Feb 2010 17:02:06 +
To: openehr-technical at openehr.org
Subject: Re: Interoperability with HL7
regarding any war - me neither ;-) Ed, I hope you see that it is reasonable
to respond in some way to disinformation like 'only use openEHR if you are
trying to talk to openEHR systems
Alberto,
at the large reference model, there are differences. But at the level of an
Entry on OpenEHR and a clinical statement in HL7 v3, I have not seen other
problems than only technical changes. Semantically the way data are
expressed and linked to codes are similar. A clinicial statement
On 29/01/2010 07:41, Alberto Moreno Conde wrote:
I would like to address the interoperability with the HL7 standards.
As I understand it is possible to map between OpenEHR to HL7 CDA, this
allows us to create systems that are based on the openEHR reference
model compatible HL7. This system
I would like to address the interoperability with the HL7 standards. As I
understand it is possible to map between OpenEHR to HL7 CDA, this allows us
to create systems that are based on the openEHR reference model compatible
HL7. This system would be able to send HL7 v2 and HL7 v3 messages from
34 matches
Mail list logo
