Archetype authoring attribution

David Moner damoca at
Fri Mar 23 04:07:14 EDT 2012

See in-line.

2012/3/22 Sam Heard <sam.heard at>

> 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 archetype (this is described in
> the 13606 standard). I would like that to be a future part of CKM but
> understand this may seem a little too controlling.****
> ** **
> If we start creating clinical content specifications in lots of places it
> will not really assist medicine a great deal. We estimate that it is
> costing health care dearly to do this again, again and again. Particularly
> when providers are interested in quality and sharing information.****
> **

Of course, sharing these models is the only way to achieve global
agreements I do not know which kind of changed they would require for the
archetypes (if any) but I think they will be related to the real data
available at the EHR system of the hospital. So they will be probably very
localized changes. What clinicians have done right now is to translate most
of the archetypes into Spanish, and that can be very easily incorporate
into the openEHR CKM archetypes.

> **
> That said, I would attribute the work to openEHR, the original authors,
> contributors and any new expert inputs. The license is to openEHR so I
> guess it is openEHR that needs attributing if you want to stay with the
> legal requirement. The SA does mean that you have to share the derived work
> under a similar license, something that some have been worried about. I am
> interested in your views on this.****
> ** **
> Cheers, Sam****
> **

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 Boscá has been working on this topic for
his PhD). The question as I said before is about the authorship attribution
and the meaning of "derived work". See below.

2012/3/23 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at>
> if it is the same archetype, then it is a derived work. Which is fine,
> that's what CC-BY is for. My understanding of the term is that a machine
> conversion to another format (which is essentially what you are saying)
> would be a derived work - legally not different from JPG -> PNG I suspect.
> - thomas
Probably the problem is not so simple. I will put different options of
things that can happen as an example  (any new case is welcome):

1- If I take an openEHR archetype and modify/specialize it as a new openEHR
archetype it is a derived work.
2- If I take an openEHR archetype and generate an implementation guide
document of it, it is a derived work. The change of the format does not
affect as you said.
3- If I take an openEHR archetype and generate software, schemas, etc. as
Thomas said in a different thread they "are not derivative works, they are
original works based on the specification"
4- If I take an openEHR archetype and generate another archetype of a
different reference model based on it (could be 13606, HL7 CDA or
whatever), is this a derivative work? The fact that the openEHR to 13606
conversion is nearly straightforward is not relevant here. It could be not
the case. At the end someone (or some automatic process) will have to
decide the correspondence between different reference models. For me this
is exactly the same case as point 3. Thus, should not be considered a
derivation but a new work which uses the original archetype as a reference,
as could have been any textbook or paper.
5- If I take an openEHR archetype and generate an HL7 CDA implementation
guide based on it, is this a derivative work? The answer to this depends on
the previous one. The fact of representing clinical models in a different
format (if we see ADL just as a format for defining models) should not
change the essence of the problem as we saw in point 2.

See that I'm just trying to set out the limits of the problem to find a
general rule if it is possible.


David Moner Cano
Grupo de Informática Biomédica - IBIME
Instituto ITACA

Universidad Politécnica de Valencia (UPV)
Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3ª planta
Valencia – 46022 (España)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list