How to fix CKM biggest issue

Marcus Baw marcusbaw at gmail.com
Sat Mar 14 09:20:58 EDT 2015


On 14 March 2015 at 04:53, pablo pazos <pazospablo at hotmail.com> wrote:

> For me the biggest concern, besides the limited publishing capabilities or
> non editors, is that the CKM is made over proprietary software, that
> doesn't allow us to create our own instances of the CKM for free, and share
> archetypes in a distributed / versioned way, like GitHub does.



​Pablo, you've nailed the problem here. *The CKM is proprietary*.

Yet:
"All contributions to CKM is on a voluntary basis, and all CKM content is
open source and freely available under a Creative Commons licence​" From
openEHR Foundation website:
http://www.openehr.org/programs/clinicalmodels/documentation

There's a disconnect there. I have in the past been in the middle of trying
to explain openEHR to open source 'purists' and been left with some
uncomfortable questions to answer about the tooling used not being freely
available.  (no, despite what may appear to be my OSS zealotry I am
actually not even close to being a Richard Stallman-esque OSS purist)

'community' computing is very definitely moving away from anything that is
dependent on proprietary platforms, towards cross-platform, open source,
generic systems. Open source languages, and Git for version control.

*If we could find some way to wrap ADL in a more readable language then
perhaps we really could just use GitHub for archetype sharing one day!* One
of the primary reasons for reliance on a GUI is that ADL in its raw form is
so unreadable. If it could be read and understood in a text editor then
there would be less need for a GUI. I accept that clinician led review
would still benefit from a GUI.

Another benefit of using a mature version control system such as Git is
that some of the metadata about archetype authoring and details of who did
a certain translation could reside in the version control commit history
and would therefore not need to reside inside the archetype itself. This
would reduce the size of archetypes, and would also obviate some of the
problems such as the one Silje mentioned on another thread - in which there
isn't room to record more than one translator.

BTW this post is very definitely not intended as a criticism of any
individuals, and I recognise the massive amount of hard work that has gone
before to even get where we are now.

Marcus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150314/bd785246/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list