openEHR-clinical Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4

Koray Atalag k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz
Thu Mar 12 16:52:17 EDT 2015


Hi Dipak,

What you are suggesting seems to be a very sensible way to approach this. Fully agree that there is no point in returning back as damage has been done but the whole point would be to contribute a more balanced view on this very important topic. I’d personally feel very comfortable if you could lead this effort and will contact you offline to discuss further.

Cheers,

-koray

From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Kalra, Dipak
Sent: Friday, 13 March 2015 12:25 a.m.
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
Cc: Jan Talmon
Subject: Re: openEHR-clinical Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4

Dear colleagues,

I am writing with a suggestion, but also hoping that a discussion of different academic perspectives on a given topic can be undertaken in a professional and mutually respecting way.

To me there seems to be little point, and probably no significant value to the field, in writing a letter of complaint or concern about a manuscript that was published a few years ago.

Since some of the original authors of the paper, including Bernd and William, are members of this openEHR discussion list and are noting the comments now being raised, I wonder if it would be of greater scientific value if a fresh debate manuscript could now be written, in which two or three authors representing each perspective write part of the article, and a neutral party is asked to write a short introduction and summing up, thereby helping the community to be better aware of multiple schools of thought and to further debate, via correspondence, the issues raised.

I would also be interested in hearing from Jan if the journal would be interested in receiving such a manuscript, as a follow-up to one of its publications a few years ago.

With best wishes,

Dipak
________________________________________________________
Dipak Kalra
Clinical Professor of Health Informatics
Centre for Health Informatics and Multiprofessional Education
University College London

President, The EuroRec Institute
Honorary Consultant, The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust, London

On 12 Mar 2015, at 10:04, Koray Atalag <k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz<mailto:k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz>> wrote:

Hi William,

I’m sorry but that paper has many obvious factual errors which I’d have assumed a very careful and knowledgeable person like yourself would not have missed. Whatever the reason I think it is a scientific responsibility to correct these errors and it is our intend to do just that.

Cheers,

-koray

From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of WILLIAM R4C
Sent: Thursday, 12 March 2015 2:16 a.m.
To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
Cc: Jan Talmon
Subject: Re: openEHR-clinical Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4

Hi all,

As one of the author's of the criticized paper by Blobel et al, I feel some need to react and give you some thoughts:

- OpenEHR after 20 or more years is still largely under construction. I have asked many times to get names and locations of reference sites where I can see a real world archetypes based system in action. No response.

- the approach with the archetypes is technology driven: implementation specific, not clinically driven. It lacks the basic conceptual, logical, implementation perspective of ISO 11179. In particular the logical modeling is what Blobel et all discuss.

- use and grounding the Modelling in formal ontologies is lacking in any of the Modelling approaches: HL7 templates, HL7 FHIR, OpenEHR archetypes, 13606 archetypes, CEMLS, CIMI, DCM in UML. The articles discussed that with respect to 3 examples. All modelers have a job to do. For justification have a look at semantic health net work.

- the GCM model allows a much deeper analysis of domain, modeling and implementation eg through domains on z axis, business bottom up and top down on y axis, and Reference Model – Open Distributed Processing (RM-ODP) system development standard on x axis.
OpenEHR, like many others have not a complete picture.

Of course you may critique a paper exposing this lack. But it feels like shooting the messenger(s) instead of listening to the message.

Guys, you've got work to do.

Vriendelijke groet,

Dr. William Goossen

Directeur Results 4 Care BV
+31654614458

Op 11 mrt. 2015 om 12:27 heeft openehr-clinical-request at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical-request at lists.openehr.org> het volgende geschreven:
Send openEHR-clinical mailing list submissions to
   openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
   http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
   openehr-clinical-request at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical-request at lists.openehr.org>

You can reach the person managing the list at
   openehr-clinical-owner at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical-owner at lists.openehr.org>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of openEHR-clinical digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. How to fix CKM biggest issue (Gustavo Bacelar)
  2. Re: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis (Thomas Beale)
  3. RE: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis (Rong Chen)
  4. Re: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis (Diego Bosc?)
  5. SV: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis (Mikael Nystr?m)
  6. Re: How to fix CKM biggest issue (Sebastian Garde)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:54:12 +0000
From: Gustavo Bacelar <gbacelar at gmail.com<mailto:gbacelar at gmail.com>>
To: openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org>>
Subject: How to fix CKM biggest issue
Message-ID:
   <CACVga3k-hQt8Qhx8tkvazvNgzyqj_C7U3jG6=f3q40UHF_nxrw at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CACVga3k-hQt8Qhx8tkvazvNgzyqj_C7U3jG6=f3q40UHF_nxrw at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear all,
I would like to suggest some very important changes for governance model of
CKM. As you all know, CKM is a keystone to openEHR, but its actual
governance model is outdated and holds the development and inclusion of new
archetypes.

As long as I know there are only 2 main editors that can import any type of
archetypes to CKM. I'm an editor too, but I can only import to
Ophthalmology Project and some other Incubators. The inclusion of new
archetypes can not depend on only 2-3 people. It is a huge constraint to
the development of openEHR, we must have more main editors.

What I propose is to follow a governance model similar to Wikipedia. It
should be possible to anyone to submit archetypes, but these would be in a
sandbox, which already exists: the Incubators. These would stimulate other
participants of CKM to develop new archetypes and to improve them much
faster. When an archetype is sufficiently mature, an editor would include
it to public use.

Kind regards
--
Gustavo Bacelar
MD + MBA + MSc Med Informatics
Skype: gustavobacela
?r
LinkedIn: pt.linkedin.com/in/gbacelar<http://pt.linkedin.com/in/gbacelar>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150311/9c16382f/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:08:16 +0000
From: Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com<mailto:thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>>
To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
Subject: Re: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis
Message-ID: <55001410.30503 at oceaninformatics.com<mailto:55001410.30503 at oceaninformatics.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed


I actually wrote to Jan Talmon about this when I was first aware of it
(30 Oct 2013) and gave him my opinion of the quality of the science in
this paper (it wasn't very positive;-). His view was that I / we /
someone should write a letter to the editor of IJMI in which the errors
/ shortcomings are discussed. I did not do this for lack of time, but I
think it would make sense to still do this and/or write a much better
paper on the topic, which could cover actual evidence and science being
done in openEHR projects, Intermountain environment, and UPV projects as
well.

thoughts?

- thomas

On 01/03/2015 20:38, Diego Bosc? wrote:


I agree, a response paper seems the most logical approach.

2015-03-01 21:31 GMT+01:00 Koray Atalag <k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz<mailto:k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz>>:
I?m completely disappointed, but not surprised, that this paper was accepted
as a scientific paper in the first place with such bold arguments.

We have all seen him advocating on openEHR during quite a few EU FP6 project
proposals ? I certainly attended a few workshops together. At some point he
must have been alienated or something?? At any rate I think it is our
responsibility to publish a formal rebuttal and challenge this paper. That?s
what science is about, isn?t it?







------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:33:35 +0000
From: Rong Chen <Rong.Chen at cambio.se<mailto:Rong.Chen at cambio.se>>
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
   <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org>>
Subject: RE: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis
Message-ID:
   <3DA5EA8C5B1CC94F882C78D81C7D2EA41EA793EF at CSS-MAIL.cambio.se<mailto:3DA5EA8C5B1CC94F882C78D81C7D2EA41EA793EF at CSS-MAIL.cambio.se>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Thomas,
I think it's a great idea! I fully support you on this.
Best regards,
Rong

Rong Chen, MD, PhD
VP, Head of Medical Informatics Group
CMIO, Director of Health Informatics
+46 8 691 49 81
?
Cambio+ Healthcare Systems AB
Stockholm:
Drottninggatan 89. SE-113 60 Stockholm
Vx: +46 8 691 49 00 | Fax: +46 8 691 49 99
Link?ping:
Universitetsv?gen 14 SE-583 30 Link?ping
Vx: +46 13 20 03 00 | Fax: +46 13 20 03 99
Epost: info at cambio.se<mailto:info at cambio.se>? | Hemsida: www.cambio.se<http://www.cambio.se/>

-----Original Message-----
From: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale
Sent: 11 March 2015 11:08
To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
Subject: Re: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis


I actually wrote to Jan Talmon about this when I was first aware of it
(30 Oct 2013) and gave him my opinion of the quality of the science in this paper (it wasn't very positive;-). His view was that I / we / someone should write a letter to the editor of IJMI in which the errors / shortcomings are discussed. I did not do this for lack of time, but I think it would make sense to still do this and/or write a much better paper on the topic, which could cover actual evidence and science being done in openEHR projects, Intermountain environment, and UPV projects as well.

thoughts?

- thomas

On 01/03/2015 20:38, Diego Bosc? wrote:


I agree, a response paper seems the most logical approach.

2015-03-01 21:31 GMT+01:00 Koray Atalag <k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz<mailto:k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz>>:
I?m completely disappointed, but not surprised, that this paper was
accepted as a scientific paper in the first place with such bold arguments.

We have all seen him advocating on openEHR during quite a few EU FP6
project proposals ? I certainly attended a few workshops together. At
some point he must have been alienated or something?? At any rate I
think it is our responsibility to publish a formal rebuttal and
challenge this paper. That?s what science is about, isn?t it?





_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:35:58 +0100
From: Diego Bosc? <yampeku at gmail.com<mailto:yampeku at gmail.com>>
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
   <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org>>
Subject: Re: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis
Message-ID:
   <CAFx8UwDX2m48DSsuxOYprPx96zGvHxFWq40Z1B4y6DhkODRYfQ at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CAFx8UwDX2m48DSsuxOYprPx96zGvHxFWq40Z1B4y6DhkODRYfQ at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Count us in ;)

2015-03-11 11:08 GMT+01:00 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com<mailto:thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>>:



I actually wrote to Jan Talmon about this when I was first aware of it (30
Oct 2013) and gave him my opinion of the quality of the science in this
paper (it wasn't very positive;-). His view was that I / we / someone should
write a letter to the editor of IJMI in which the errors / shortcomings are
discussed. I did not do this for lack of time, but I think it would make
sense to still do this and/or write a much better paper on the topic, which
could cover actual evidence and science being done in openEHR projects,
Intermountain environment, and UPV projects as well.

thoughts?

- thomas

On 01/03/2015 20:38, Diego Bosc? wrote:

I agree, a response paper seems the most logical approach.

2015-03-01 21:31 GMT+01:00 Koray Atalag <k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz<mailto:k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz>>:

I?m completely disappointed, but not surprised, that this paper was
accepted
as a scientific paper in the first place with such bold arguments.

We have all seen him advocating on openEHR during quite a few EU FP6
project
proposals ? I certainly attended a few workshops together. At some point
he
must have been alienated or something?? At any rate I think it is our
responsibility to publish a formal rebuttal and challenge this paper.
That?s
what science is about, isn?t it?





_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:55:18 +0000
From: Mikael Nystr?m <mikael.nystrom at liu.se<mailto:mikael.nystrom at liu.se>>
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
   <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org>>
Subject: SV: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis
Message-ID:
   <6091679361C5CD42AC63CBC47C4550C522DAE33A at MB1-2010.ad.liu.se<mailto:6091679361C5CD42AC63CBC47C4550C522DAE33A at MB1-2010.ad.liu.se>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I might also be interested.

   Regards
   Mikael


-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Fr?n: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at lists.openehr.org] F?r Diego Bosc?
Skickat: den 11 mars 2015 11:36
Till: For openEHR clinical discussions
?mne: Re: Clinical Modeling - A critical analysis

Count us in ;)

2015-03-11 11:08 GMT+01:00 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com<mailto:thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>>:



I actually wrote to Jan Talmon about this when I was first aware of it
(30 Oct 2013) and gave him my opinion of the quality of the science in
this paper (it wasn't very positive;-). His view was that I / we /
someone should write a letter to the editor of IJMI in which the
errors / shortcomings are discussed. I did not do this for lack of
time, but I think it would make sense to still do this and/or write a
much better paper on the topic, which could cover actual evidence and
science being done in openEHR projects, Intermountain environment, and UPV projects as well.

thoughts?

- thomas

On 01/03/2015 20:38, Diego Bosc? wrote:

I agree, a response paper seems the most logical approach.

2015-03-01 21:31 GMT+01:00 Koray Atalag <k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz<mailto:k.atalag at auckland.ac.nz>>:

I?m completely disappointed, but not surprised, that this paper was
accepted as a scientific paper in the first place with such bold
arguments.

We have all seen him advocating on openEHR during quite a few EU FP6
project proposals ? I certainly attended a few workshops together.
At some point he must have been alienated or something?? At any rate
I think it is our responsibility to publish a formal rebuttal and
challenge this paper.
That?s
what science is about, isn?t it?





_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.opene
hr.org<http://hr.org/>

_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:27:25 +0100
From: Sebastian Garde <sebastian.garde at oceaninformatics.com<mailto:sebastian.garde at oceaninformatics.com>>
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
   <openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org>>
Subject: Re: How to fix CKM biggest issue
Message-ID: <5500269D.7040708 at oceaninformatics.com<mailto:5500269D.7040708 at oceaninformatics.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

Hi Gustavo,

What we will have soon with the next release of CKM is the ability for
any user to propose new archetypes.
We call them Archetype Proposals - this is essentially the Sandbox you
are suggesting, but it is not yet an incubator - more like an Inbox.

Archetype Proposals will then be assigned to appropriate projects or
incubators by Clinical Knowledge Admins (CKAs).
Although CKAs are indeed a small number of people, this should not be a
bottle-neck because this is a small task only (akin to sorting through
the inbox)

From there on, there can be many editors for the separate
projects/incubators in addition who would oversee the further
development/review and publishing of the proposed archetypes.

If you want to check it out, you can go to our Test CKM at
http://ckm-test.oceaninformatics.com<http://ckm-test.oceaninformatics.com/>
Create an account if you don't have one and go to Archetypes/Propose New
Archetype to submit a new archetype.
(Just note that this is a test/development server and may be unstable,
unavailable, and any data on it may be changed or deleted at any time.)

Having said that, as you say, I think more editors to share the burden
in the individual projects would be great, of course.

Regards
Sebastian

On 11.03.2015 10:54, Gustavo Bacelar wrote:


Dear all,
I would like to suggest some very important changes for governance
model of CKM. As you all know, CKM is a keystone to openEHR, but its
actual governance model is outdated and holds the development and
inclusion of new archetypes.

As long as I know there are only 2 main editors that can import any
type of archetypes to CKM. I'm an editor too, but I can only import to
Ophthalmology Project and some other Incubators. The inclusion of new
archetypes can not depend on only 2-3 people. It is a huge constraint
to the development of openEHR, we must have more main editors.

What I propose is to follow a governance model similar to Wikipedia.
It should be possible to anyone to submit archetypes, but these would
be in a sandbox, which already exists: the Incubators. These would
stimulate other participants of CKM to develop new archetypes and to
improve them much faster. When an archetype is sufficiently mature, an
editor would include it to public use.

Kind regards
--
Gustavo Bacelar
MD + MBA + MSc Med Informatics
Skype: gustavobacela
?r
LinkedIn: pt.linkedin.com/in/gbacelar<http://pt.linkedin.com/in/gbacelar> <http://pt.linkedin.com/in/gbacelar>


_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto: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/
Ocean Informatics

Skype: gardeseb


---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft.
http://www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150311/3afe0c6a/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org

------------------------------

End of openEHR-clinical Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4
***********************************************
_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org>
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150312/4b8b4a1b/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list