Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

This space is intended to facilitate discussions around establishing local openEHR organisations worldwide. It is envisaged that this will happen through a new work stream called the Localisation Program.

This is how it is shaping up:

1) Local openEHR activity will happen through Qualified Membership for the Localisation Program where individuals and organisations (?) can join from different countries (may as well be a specific territory, language group etc. depending on what local needs are). Acceptance will be based on relevant experience and skills required for localisation activities.

2) Localisation Program Committee, consisting of up to nine individuals, will decide about who can be qualified members in this arena. Main focus of this Committee is to work with the Community and Board and describe how to establish local presence, what processes are required to getting activity in that country and eventually having an affiliated organisation that takes on local representation. This can be any suitably constituted organisation involved in IT. For example in New Zealand it'll be through HL7 NZ Affiliate.  

3) Local openEHR Representative (n.b. one or more?) from particular countries will be designated who will lead group of qualified members and other contributors in that country. The Advisory Group will propose to get permission from the Board to represent a national representative and then a representative organisation. These appointments should be approved by the Board before the person is informed that they are the national representative. The Advisory Group will help get the terms of reference for each group sorted and agreed by the Board.

We (Jussara, Shinji and Koray) did some initial thinking together and have few ideas. Let's put our collective thoughts here and try to progress from here.Good luck!


Some thoughts:
1) What exactly does localisation involve? Practically the aim is to introduce openEHR and engage more people and organisations by providing material (Website, prezos, specs and other documentation) and also Archetypes in native language and with local context.

2) Do we need a 'real' organisation or should we continue to work as loosely coupled individuals? Well this is for discussion but many of us believe establishing or working under a not for profit organisation is essential. This will help 'formal' recognition from government and other national organisations, and more importantly we can participate into grant applications, receive sponsorships etc. which may yield substantial resources.

3) How will local membership work? Essentially local openEHR organisations will be open to all and at no cost. However this will not prevent receiving financial or in-kind support from individuals and organisations in return for services or sponsorship.

4) IP issues? ( of openEHR assets and local assets). This probably is tricky as much as we want it to be. However rule of thumb is that, in the spirit of openEHR, both should be free of any royalty or any license of limiting sort. That said some national bodies, such as government or national standards organisations, may require ownership of some local material developed. How shall we deal with this? Has this been a problem for example in Nehta? others? We need input here.

5) Responsibilities and rights of openEHR and local organisations? we will need some sort of a 'template' which provides some common means and then each local organisation may extend that to form their 'constitution' which might be legally binding.

6) How will local activity work? Each local organisation will have one or more qualified members and a national openEHR representative.It is expected that each project or work stream will at least one qualified member who will lead or provide guidance to other members. This will ensure that it'll get proper 'openEHR' seal.

7) Is each local organisation going to have own CKM? Well we should avoid duplication and degradation of international level coherence. Ideally a single CKM instance capable of providing many different national views would be good. Even better, in the likes of decentralisation, perhaps we can have a distributed architecture where national CKM instances can work in sync with top level international CKM and each other. Or perhaps as a start jurisdictions with commonalities (e.g. language, geography, culture) can share instances (e.g. Spanish speaking communities, Nordic countries, or NZ & Oz together etc.).

Feel free to add to the list or provide feedback. Many thanks...

  • No labels

2 Comments

  1. In my opinion through openEHR.jp action.

    1) What local community needs exist in their local community.

    This is my presentation file on a symposium at Japanese medical informatics association with Prof Dipak Kalra.

    http://www.slideshare.net/ShinjiKobayashi2/localisation-of-openehr-in-japan

    We can only know what we need, but cannot know what the other country/region/area exactly needs.

    Because each country has each environment around health care, single rule would not work all over the world.

    2) Small voluntary group is good at initial phase.

    To achieve best performance, 'real' organisation should be necessary, but to establish an organisation needs much initial cost. Most of the local open source software communities in Japan are still voluntary groups. We, Japanese community, are discussing about the possibility to register our community as NPO to Japanese government, because we need some funding background.

    However, it took more than 4 years experiences of voluntary group.

    3) Voluntary contribution / commercial or political presence.

    Voluntary contribution is enough to translation or some development, but not in lobbying or achieving commercial sponsorship. Local membership is mainly in voluntary base today. Most of our works are voluntary base, but some works are from funds from the government project on our research. I think we cannot make any obligation for contribution in voluntary community.

    4) IP for open source community

    To clarify IP issues in local, we have to be active in local area. Once we have experienced Perl trademark trouble in Japan. A commercial company claimed Perl trademark for its proprietary business.

    http://mt.endeworks.jp/d-6/2010/06/perl-trademark-in-japan.html

    http://blogs.perl.org/users/lestrrat/2011/09/perl-trademark-in-japan.html

    This trouble was fixed peacefully now, but it cost painful labors for open source community in Japan. To prove the priority at IP issue, we must show evidence of our work in local, because most of the IP issues are judged in local court. To share artefacts locally/globally, I think Apache 2 license is good for any purpose. If we can, we should claim trademark in as many countries as possible.

    5) 'AS-IS' is the principle of open source software.

    Local community shares and publishes the material they developed, but they have no responsibility under Apache 2 license. I think to prove responsibility is another business.

    6) How to develop local activity

    There are many countries/areas in this planet. Qualified members cannot cover all. I think Ubuntu loco model is good for us, too. Each local activity have to report their work once per two years for registration as local delegate. As of Japanese proverb, 'deliver a small baby and grow up big boy' is a easier way than having a big baby at first.

    7) Local CKM seems overkill.

    Yes, Japanese community has discussed whether we need a local CKM or not in long time. In my opinion, clinical model validation needs many viewpoints to make it out. As if a concept were only domestic one, the concept might be global one. To share draft archetypes or templates in local community is a good practice, but I think some of them are available for other domains.

    Moreover, to maintain local CKM needs much efforts for local domain, and openEHR.org.

    I would like to show simple rules between local/global community, just as my private draft.

    • Local community acts as a delegate of the openEHR.
    • Local community can use openEHR artefacts under Apache 2 license
    • Local community does not endorse or promote other projects.
    • Local community should be opened for their region.
    • Local community has to report their activity to the localisation committee of the openEHR project once per two years.
  2. Some thoughts:

    I think we need to define some "organizational" stuff before we engange on defining something on the localization area.
    I'm very excited about what we can achieve, but I'm stuck because I don't know what to do, what to propose, or what is expected from us... i.e.: (PROPOSED POINTS TO A FIRST MEETING AGENDA)

    1. what are our roles inside the committee?
    2. what are we going to define or propose?
    3. how will be the process of doing that?
    4. what are the rules? (communication, proposals, decision process, etc.)
    5. how will our proposals o decisions be documented and presented to the openEHR boards?
    6. on what topics we will be making decisions? (copyright/IP, creating local/regional valid openEHR representative organizations, training certification, software projects coordination, ....)
      I've seen a couple of Doodle polls proposals to do some kind of chat but without an agenda. Maybe we should agree on an agenda an then try to agree on a time/date. Remember that we are all in different timezones, so maybe we will need 2 or 3 meetings about the same topics to create minutes from those meetings that could have everybody's opinions on it (we should have an agenda and minutes for every meeting).