tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367102802658603789.post7232566766970371998..comments2024-01-29T04:29:03.583-08:00Comments on David Clunie's Blog: Oracle v. Google: Opening the Closed HL7 Standard (including CDA) ?David Cluniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17331067317921452126noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367102802658603789.post-45644955024908389292013-08-23T12:24:04.802-07:002013-08-23T12:24:04.802-07:00HL7 changed to a more open policy, and no longer a...HL7 changed to a more open policy, and no longer attempts to restrict use to fee-paying members. So, one no longer has to avoid CDA for that reason.<br /><br />I don't know if there has been further legal precedent established with respect to whether a publisher of a standard or API can legally restrict its use.<br />David Cluniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331067317921452126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367102802658603789.post-55081125656618157762013-08-23T11:35:27.702-07:002013-08-23T11:35:27.702-07:00So where do we stand today David?So where do we stand today David?Keith W. Boonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16883038460949909300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367102802658603789.post-1070773493248946132012-07-26T08:03:26.997-07:002012-07-26T08:03:26.997-07:00As stated and well-known, DICOM is an open Standar...As stated and well-known, DICOM is an open Standard. Part 20 of the Standard, pages 57ff publishes a CDA Basic Imaging Report (BIR), which is the counter part of an equivalent DICOM Structured Report. All APIs are described carefully, since the equivalence was the purpose of the authors.<br />With DICOM Standard part 20, one can create DICOM Structured Reports and be confident that they can be translated into corresponding CDA documents when required. <br />But there is another and I think more interesting way to implement BIR archiving and communication, namely by enclosing the BIR CDA into a DICOM encapsulated CDA object.<br />I am about to publish an open source way to do that and wonder if, legally speaking, BIR belongs to the DICOM Open standard, or is copyright-protected by HL7?Jacques Fauquexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10358183474177387127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367102802658603789.post-65845015356080490732012-07-23T05:42:47.034-07:002012-07-23T05:42:47.034-07:00FYI, the HL7 International Response to the UK Cabi...FYI, the HL7 International Response to the UK Cabinet Office Open Standards Consultation is available <a href="http://www.hl7.org.uk/repository/uploads/989/1/HL7%20UK%20Response%20to%20Cabinet%20Office%20Open%20Standards%20Consultation.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>, as discussed on the UK Imaging Informatics board <a href="http://www.pacsgroup.org.uk/forum/messages/2/70394.html?1343044824" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />One of their comments that I find most surprising is their claim that there are no large companies willing to sustain HL7 voluntarily, despite the involvement of well known companies whose revenue is measure in the billions; I quite some examples in the UK forum. And I am not taking about GE.David Cluniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331067317921452126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367102802658603789.post-7182692365139725472012-06-26T16:33:11.337-07:002012-06-26T16:33:11.337-07:00Well, personally, I agree that closed standards ha...Well, personally, I agree that closed standards have no place. That's why I worked so hard to make fhir happen. However, I'd characterize the dicom as dominated by a small set of large hardware vendors for whom interoperability offers increased size of he total pie. I do not think that this true of hl7, by and large. While there are some members for whom batter interoperability is a business benefit, there are many who aren't. On the other hand, it's not like dicom offers ease of use - and that's always seemed like a business goal of he players - also different to hl7Grahame Grievehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08635283945076545993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367102802658603789.post-18194526256868562812012-06-25T06:03:24.075-07:002012-06-25T06:03:24.075-07:00I think the business drivers are exactly the same,...I think the business drivers are exactly the same, just like any other IT standards, though I would be interested to hear why you think the drivers are are different.<br /><br />Closed standards have no place and no future in 21st Century IT, in healthcare or any other industry.<br /><br />DavidDavid Cluniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331067317921452126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367102802658603789.post-66276908141968532902012-06-25T05:51:56.868-07:002012-06-25T05:51:56.868-07:00"The logic behind this is that those who are ..."The logic behind this is that those who are members, and hence subsidize the standard for everyone's benefit, gain from widespread adoption"<br /><br />I'm not entirely sure that this same argument applies to the HL7 community the way it applies to DICOM. Certainly, the business drivers are rather different, no?Grahame Grievehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08635283945076545993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367102802658603789.post-27763338861980339782012-06-25T04:33:52.267-07:002012-06-25T04:33:52.267-07:00DICOM is funded by membership too (of DICOM +/- NE...DICOM is funded by membership too (of DICOM +/- NEMA), but it is completely voluntary, and anyone can implement it whether they are a member or not.<br /><br />The logic behind this is that those who are members, and hence subsidize the standard for everyone's benefit, gain from widespread adoption even though there are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem" rel="nofollow">"free riders"</a>. As in the Open Source community, the free rider phenomenon is not a problem but a benefit.<br /><br />DICOM would never have been implemented if it were not free and open.<br /><br />Arguably, HL7 V2 would never have been implemented if it had not been free originally too (despite the revisionist history), and was not still perceived largely to be so and the IP policy ignored.<br /><br />Like internet and web standards, if major players want interoperability enough, they just get together and do it and share it; they don't have to fund a lot of extraneous activities.<br /><br />This is not generosity, it is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest" rel="nofollow">enlightened self-interest</a>.<br /><br />David<br /><br />The DICOM standard itself is also distributed for free, and sale of the standard is not a revenue stream either.David Cluniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331067317921452126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367102802658603789.post-16008330651594278342012-06-25T01:56:33.051-07:002012-06-25T01:56:33.051-07:00Just as a clarification, only part 2 of EN13606 (A...Just as a clarification, only part 2 of EN13606 (Archetype Definition Language, ADL) is also shared with openEHR. The extract, Reference Model, data types, etc. are differentYampekuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13622716292135500570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367102802658603789.post-76145247448772555422012-06-24T14:50:31.447-07:002012-06-24T14:50:31.447-07:00"analogous to an API"? Sounds like fun f..."analogous to an API"? Sounds like fun for a lawyer. <br /><br />Of course, all this stuff has to be paid for. You can't develop a spec for free. A clear majority of HL7 members would rather the spec was free, but transitioning business models is dangerous. How is Dicom funded?Grahame Grievehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08635283945076545993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367102802658603789.post-41021242396393889482012-06-24T06:15:17.035-07:002012-06-24T06:15:17.035-07:00Hi Grahame
To quote from Judge Alsup's ruling...Hi Grahame<br /><br />To quote from Judge Alsup's ruling:<br /><br />"copyright protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law"<br /><br />so presumably this applies to the names of XML elements, for example.<br /><br />Furthermore, with respect to the entire definition of the CDA schema and its rules beyond the schema, which is analogous to an API:<br /><br />"The overall name tree, of course, has creative elements but it is also a precise command structure — a utilitarian and functional set of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function. This command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted. Duplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability."<br /><br />David<br /><br />PS. FHIR is potentially cool and there are a number of other HL7 pilot projects that have more flexible licenses, but the bottom line remains, that for now, HL7's position on critical stuff like CDA is recalcitrant.David Cluniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331067317921452126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367102802658603789.post-53816633851111184472012-06-24T05:54:36.535-07:002012-06-24T05:54:36.535-07:00Hi David
IANAL either. But the copyright on CDA i...Hi David<br /><br />IANAL either. But the copyright on CDA isn't a copyright on the process of patient care or summarisation, but on the names of the CDA elements (for instance). I don't see how your argument has any water. <br /><br />On the other hand, HL7 is getting out of first gear: <br />http://hl7.org/fhir/Grahame Grievehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08635283945076545993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367102802658603789.post-19781825110216115202012-06-23T15:05:12.484-07:002012-06-23T15:05:12.484-07:00It should be noted that a similar (previous) rulin...It should be noted that a similar (previous) ruling applies in EU as well as US. How 'final' either of them are is perhaps open to question as O agreed to damages from G of $0 with the *apparent* intention to appeal.<br /><br />Having followed the OvG case for a little while (as well as others - copyright and patent - that other players particularly in the 'mobile' space are involved in) - it seems (IANAL) that some of the reason (or justification) is in that timely defense of one's IP is necessary for the continued validity of that IP.<br /><br />In that sense, the HL7 position is both legally and morally untenable. There are (as we all know) thousands of unchallenged HL7 implementations in in-house and open source developments (not to mention small vendors) that would undermine any legal position HL7 ever thought it had.<br /><br />In the meantime, strategic decisions on data formats are a tough call. *IF* HL7 open up fully in the next wee while then it can be a good call that CDA is the way forward. If not - there is inevitably additional risk involved.<br /><br />There are obviously lots of good (and bad) reasons why HL7, IHE and DICOM move so slowly, but this is one instance where the guys in HL7 need to shift into second.Martin Peacocknoreply@blogger.com