Following on from some recent discussions about reuse of the CKM published models, I’m curious about whether we can explore conformance to the CKM published archetypes…
- Would vendors consider making public which archetypes they use? eg by some way of marking their use on CKM. This could be construed as endorsement for some models (and good from a CKM POV) . In addition, using lots of the models may be seen as a marketing advantage to the vendor. Obviously if not reusing many of the models, this could also be considered a threat.
- If this is worth pursuing, how can we make sure that this is kept up-to-date? Sustainability of this kind of data is often the point of failure for any index or directory. If it is not up-to-date, it potentially becomes meaningless.
- If we are still on this journey, is it possible to devise some kind of audit process to verify and certify the archetype reuse?
Clearly, conformance to the specifications is important as part of quality control to support openEHR procurement processes.
In parallel, as a community we publicly boast of the archetypes and the advantage of reuse and interop etc. How do we substantiate the rhetoric? If the archetypes in vendor systems are predominantly local or 'quick and dirty, currently hidden behind the openEHR branding, but essentially replicating their previous non-openEHR systems, how can we benchmark this in order to provide some measure of ‘quality control’ or capacity for potential interop with other model-compliant openEHR systems?
Anticipating this might be an awkward conversation, but I haven’t seen this raised or discussed previously.