# Translation approaches **Category:** [Clinical (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/clinical-archive/153) **Created:** 2012-01-13 11:24 UTC **Views:** 1 **Replies:** 37 **URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/translation-approaches/15134 --- ## Post #1 by @ian.mcnicoll I recently posted the question below to the CKM General Discussion list\. Replies there please, if possible\. Hi all, It is great to see increasing numbers of translations being offered for archetypes but I have a question for those of us working in languages which have national/cultural variants e\.g English, UK English, US English or Spanish , Argentinian Spanish\. Creating and maintaining translations will be quite onerous\. At the moment, each translation of every sub\-language is separately maintained within ADL, although it is actually quite easy to hack the ADL to copy/paste from a different language variant i\.e to create en\-us from en\-gb\. Although implementations may vary, I suspet most would work similar to the Ocean tools and will look for and make use of a parent or neutral language if possible e\.g\. if the tools native operating system culture is 'en\-gb' it will look for 'en\-gb' translation and if not found look for the parent 'en', finally defaulting to the primary archetype language if necessary\. This 'default to parent' mechanism means that we could potentially simplify translation by using the parent/neutral culture if at all possible e\.g translate to en rather than en\-gb or es rather than es\-ar\. This would work pretty well in English where there few examples of clinically important spelling differences which might cause confusion between language variants\. I am happy to tolerate a few American 'z' spellings instead of 's', if it reduces the translation burden\. If people feel strongly they can always create the sub\-language variant\. My question to an international audience is whether this would be equally acceptable for other languages and cultures, appreciating that this can be a touchy subject\!\! One thing that might also help is to allow the sub\-language variant to be expressed a a differential on the parent language within ADL i\.e\. rather than the es\-ar variant being a complete list of translated terms, just carry those that differ from the parent language terms\. So my suggestion is that when translating we use the parent language, rather than a local variant unless there are compelling reasons, and even then it may make sense to create the parent AND the variant, where the parent does not already exist\. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office \+44 \(0\)1536 414 994 fax \+44 \(0\)1536 516317 mobile \+44 \(0\)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian\.mcnicoll@oceaninformatics\.com Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK Director/Clinical Knowledge Editor openEHR Foundation www\.openehr\.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland BCS Primary Health Care www\.phcsg\.org --- ## Post #2 by @system Hi Ian, 2012/1/13 Ian McNicoll <[Ian.McNicoll@oceaninformatics.com](mailto:Ian.McNicoll@oceaninformatics.com)> > One thing that might also help is to allow the sub-language variant to > be expressed a a differential on the parent language within ADL i.e. > rather than the es-ar variant being a complete list of translated > terms, just carry those that differ from the parent language terms. That's exactly my thinking. To work as much as possible with the root or parent language and just include at localised languages the possible changes or varying items. This differential approach seems quite useful to me. David --- ## Post #3 by @system Wait, because I answered too fast :-) Imagine that the original language is English. Then a complete translation is made to "es-es". And finally, a translation is made to "es-ar". Can this last translation be just a differential form from "es-es"? The general rule is that any translation is made based on the original language. Thus, the system has no explicit way of knowing that "es-ar" items must be completed with those at "es-es". Moreover, can we allow using a "root" language as a primary language? I don't think so, since anyone who does it will use implicitly his own variant. If an Argentinian creates an archetype, he will use the es-ar variant implicitly, since the pure "es" does not exist and he won't even be aware that some words are local ones. Seems that the problem is more tricky than we thought. David 2012/1/13 David Moner <[damoca@gmail.com](mailto:damoca@gmail.com)> --- ## Post #4 by @ian.mcnicoll Hi David, Your concern is the root of my question\. I am confident that, at least for English, the variations in clinical language are small enough that there would be no safety issue if an American authored an 'en' translation using some en\-us phrases that I wanted to use in the UK\. There might certainly be some aesthetic annoyances e\.g 'z' instead of 's' but it is difficult to imagine any reallly significant problems or safety issues in use\. As in everything, 'let the buyer beware' \- exactly the same caution must apply to any translation since the translator may not fully understand the underlying concepts \- that is why we have added translation review functionality to CKM so that broader input can be sought\. I think adopting a generic 'en' approach is safe and acceptable, not sure about other languages\. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office \+44 \(0\)1536 414 994 fax \+44 \(0\)1536 516317 mobile \+44 \(0\)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian\.mcnicoll@oceaninformatics\.com Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK Director/Clinical Knowledge Editor openEHR Foundation www\.openehr\.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland BCS Primary Health Care www\.phcsg\.org --- ## Post #5 by @thomas.beale yes, that's the way it should be\. I will ensure this is made explicit in ADL 1\.5\. \- thomas --- ## Post #6 by @SEABURY_Tom_NHS_DIGI Hi In this thread it seems relevant to review the approaches which have been used in the development of SNOMED CT, not because they are the only or best approaches, but they illustrate some salient points to consider such as; \- Commitment not only to development but of maintenance \- The necessary extent of translation \(can a partial set ever be adequate?\) \- The need to percolate through any changes to all translations e\.g\. from a refined ontological definition \- There are definite authorities for IHTSDO who own various Editions of the SNOMED CT, they have to find the funds to perform and maintain translations, contrast this to volunteer effort alone\. There is a body of expertise in IHTSDO which may be a key resource to help you scope the approach in more detail\. It is interesting to note that the UK Terminology Centre take the US edition and make substantial augmentations and other adjustments for it to be used, the Austrians likewise have their own adjustments including their own medicines terminology \(AMT\) and New Zealand has a different approach to both these, Canada have Canadian French as well as US English in their release of SNOMED CT\. I hope this pointer to similar practise is helpful, regards Tom Seabury Implementation Consultant Data Standards and Products, Technology Office Department of Health Informatics Directorate tom\.seabury@nhs\.net --- ## Post #7 by @thomas.beale I don't think this will fly. The names for some oeprations are different, e.g. appendectomy, appendicectomy, also professions - anaesthetist / anesthesiologist ([wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesiologist)). I doubt if all the 'serious' instititutions in either country will put up with changes like this. - thomas --- ## Post #8 by @ian.mcnicoll Sure , that's fine but I am not suggesting that local variants are never required\. If someone demands or requires a local spelling or term, so be it, they can go and create the translation\. Also, many of these stylistic issues will actually \(as in your examples\) likely to be in an external terminology, or in node descriptions / metadata rather in the internal terms themselves\. The issue is whether there are any real safety concerns, rather than just cultural preferences\. Not a problem in English as far as I can tell\. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office \+44 \(0\)1536 414 994 fax \+44 \(0\)1536 516317 mobile \+44 \(0\)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian\.mcnicoll@oceaninformatics\.com Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK Director/Clinical Knowledge Editor openEHR Foundation www\.openehr\.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland BCS Primary Health Care www\.phcsg\.org --- ## Post #9 by @thomas.beale I think we have to assume that managing a group of translations like es, es\-es, es\-cl, and so on, will always require a bit of juggling each time a new one is added\. What is in the 'es' one is goinng to be somewhat arbitrary\. Consider for instance that a Spanish doctor gets there first with what she thinks is a normative 'es' translation; but then imagine 5 South American countries want to use the archetype and they all have the same variation, i\.e\. in fact if we consider the number of users, it should be the South American translation should become the 'es' translation and the Spanish one should become 'es\-es' \(just the differences\)\. If this is not done, it means there have to be 5 es\-cl, es\-ar, etc additions, which is obviously somewhat annoying since it could have been avoided \(AFAIK there is no way to make a es\-?? where ?? = some region, like South America\)\. So it seems to me that the only thing that we can mandate is that the final result of 'compressing' es\-es \+ es, es\-cl \+ es, es\-ar \+ es etc, is in fact correct for each language\. WHen any new translation is added, it could mean that all the translations for that language group are changed in some way, so as to get the most optimal outcome, but I don't see how we could mandate this\. \- thomas --- ## Post #10 by @system Hi, The examples given by Thomas are on the level of classifications and terminologies and not the generic names in artifacts, I think. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 [gfrer@luna.nl](mailto:gfrer@luna.nl) --- ## Post #11 by @system Exactly, that is what I mean when I said that a pure "es" does not exist, and probably the same applies to any other language with localisations. An example of different local interpretation I can recall now in Spanish is the word "constipado". In Argentina it means the same as in English, "constipation". But in Spain it means "to have a cold". As Ian and Gerard have said, probably this is solved by using terminologies, but it is an indication that local language codes are needed. 2012/1/13 Thomas Beale <[thomas.beale@oceaninformatics.com](mailto:thomas.beale@oceaninformatics.com)> --- ## Post #12 by @ian.mcnicoll Brilliant example\!\! That could indeed lead to some unfortunate decision support being enacted\. I think it is pretty clear that for eference terminologies, even in English, there is really no option but to create a localised translation because of the variation you have described\. I just wonder, however, whether it really applies in archetypes where the context is much more constrained\. It might be interesting for you or other native Spanish speakers to have a look at the recent es\-ar translations uploaded to CKM and see how many 'incorrect' es\-es you can find\. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office \+44 \(0\)1536 414 994 fax \+44 \(0\)1536 516317 mobile \+44 \(0\)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian\.mcnicoll@oceaninformatics\.com Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK Director/Clinical Knowledge Editor openEHR Foundation www\.openehr\.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland BCS Primary Health Care www\.phcsg\.org --- ## Post #13 by @system Ian, What is needed are local tesauri in the local dialect referring to a Reference Terminology plus additional concepts when the Reference Terminology (and UK-English) do not know these concepts. Names for nodes in artefacts can be given an UK-English name and code from a Reference Terminology. In the Template people can add their own local dialects. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 [gfrer@luna.nl](mailto:gfrer@luna.nl) --- ## Post #14 by @system Since I'm not a clinician maybe I could miss many details, but in any case there should not be many differences and not of importance. In a quick view I only found "provisorio" at the "test status" of openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.lab_test-blood_gases.v1. In Spain "provisional" would be used instead. But this is similar to the British/American English differences, a change not of real importance. 2012/1/13 Ian McNicoll <[Ian.McNicoll@oceaninformatics.com](mailto:Ian.McNicoll@oceaninformatics.com)> --- ## Post #15 by @thomas.beale they would be if they were single terms and available in e\.g\. Snomed, but where they occur in larger phrases defined in archetype term definitions, I don't see any alternative to using the archetype mechanism to solve it\. In most cases, there will be no available translation in any external terminology \(SNomed has only a few languages done\), not to mention the many cases where there is no term at all in any language in SCT or elsewhere\. \- thomas --- ## Post #16 by @thomas.beale well again, I know these differences seem small to us technical people, but there are all kinds of objections that could be raised by clinicians, organisations that cannot tolerate different terms from what their software currently uses, etc\.\.\.\. I think we should be careful making assumptions about what is acceptable on a clinician user interface\. \- thomas --- ## Post #17 by @system Templates will provide local dialects. Archetype nodes are defined in a preferred English-UK language. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 [gfrer@luna.nl](mailto:gfrer@luna.nl) --- ## Post #18 by @system Local to organisations probably yes (I really don't know how languages are managed at template level, but seem reasonable that there you can add local terms, right?). But you cannot expect that archetypes will be always defined by British clinicians 2012/1/14 Gerard Freriks <[gfrer@luna.nl](mailto:gfrer@luna.nl)> --- ## Post #19 by @system Wen there are no codes from a Reference Terminology we need to specify an other Golden Standard and that is UK-English, monitored by a committee that is the owner of the list of preferred terms/ Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 [gfrer@luna.nl](mailto:gfrer@luna.nl) --- ## Post #20 by @system Ok, but as Thomas said we are talking about the archetype node descriptions, not about coded terms or values of clinical data. 2012/1/14 Gerard Freriks <[gfrer@luna.nl](mailto:gfrer@luna.nl)> --- ## Post #21 by @thomas.beale in ADL 1\.5 templates, the language handling is the same as for current archetypes\. And it is certainly not the case that English \(let alone UK English\) is the original language of all archetypes\. We already have archetypes whose original language is PT\-BR, NL, and \(I think\) Russian\. \- thomas --- ## Post #22 by @Domingo_Liotta Hello List members: (mucho gusto David) The translations of archetypes were part of the final evaluation of Ing. Pablo Pazos first online course of openEHR in Spanish. I was rather shocked to see so few archetypes in Spanish, so hands on task I´ll translate myself, as many as possible. So I started with archetypes in English. I found previously David’s translation and I think there is another from Chile. I looked at both; they look fine to me, so I didn’t make any variations. I believe Ian´s approach to using a root language is correct. I couldn´t find any impediment to use my es-ar translation for es-es (for the body temperature archetype). I know a fellow classmate Leonardo will also be translating archetypes, we will work together and not overlap. I do have a suggestion that may be useful in this discussion: Our School of Medicine at the [UM](http://www.unimoron.edu.ar/) works extensively with a Languages Lab (many languages even oriental), so I can do a small research about the variability in different variations of languages and if it impacts the meaning of a clinical concept. I hope to be able to tap this resource into the openEHR community somehow too. Hope this can be helpful Best regards (PS: When I´m knowledgeable enough to create archetypes myself they will be done in both Spanish and English) Dr. Domingo Liotta (h) Director Cátedra Abierta de Bienestar Médica, Universidad de Morón [http://argentinawellness.org](http://argentinawellness.org) My profiles: [Facebook](http://www.facebook.com/dliotta)[LinkedIn](http://ar.linkedin.com/in/domingoliotta)[Facebook Page](http://www.facebook.com/pages/Catedra-Abierta-de-Bienestar-Medica)[Twitter](http://twitter.com/dliotta) Contact me: Google Talkdomingo.liotta Skypedliotta MSNdomingo_liotta@hotmail.com Y! Messengerdomingo_liotta@yahoo.com.ar > [Google Plus](http://plus.google.com/100786128443276184807) | My latest G+: [Facebook Off (preparando proyectos para el 2012) Saludos!!](http://plus.google.com/100786128443276184807/posts/7DYiWwgiYuy/)
[My G+](http://plus.google.com/100786128443276184807) - [Posts](http://plus.google.com/100786128443276184807/posts/) - [Add to Circles](http://plus.google.com/100786128443276184807/about/) - [14:34 Dec-11](http://plus.google.com/100786128443276184807)
| > - | - | [Get this email app! ](http://www.wisestamp.com/apps/plus?utm_source=extension&utm_medium=email&utm_term=plus&utm_campaign=apps) > [](http://twitter.com/dliotta) | Latest tweet: @valelarravide hola Vale :) si porsupuesto Mandame un DM tranqui
[Follow @dliotta](http://twitter.com/dliotta)[ Reply ](http://twitter.com/?status=@dliotta%20&in_reply_to_status_id=157645795707985920&in_reply_to=dliotta)[Retweet ](http://twitter.com/?status=RT%20%40dliotta%3A%20%40valelarravide%20hola%20Vale%20%3A)%20si%20porsupuesto%20Mandame%20un%20DM%20tranqui)[23:11 Jan-12](http://twitter.com/dliotta/statuses/157645795707985920)
| > - | - | [Get this email app! ](http://www.wisestamp.com/apps/twitter?utm_source=extension&utm_medium=email&utm_term=twitter&utm_campaign=apps) [](http://www.linkedin.com/in/) [Get a signature like this. ](http://r1.wisestamp.com/r/landing?promo=19&dest=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wisestamp.com%2Femail-install%3Futm_source%3Dextension%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3Dpromo_19)[CLICK HERE.](http://r1.wisestamp.com/r/landing?promo=19&dest=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wisestamp.com%2Femail-install%3Futm_source%3Dextension%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_campaign%3Dpromo_19) Web Bug from http://pr1.wisestamp.com/p.gif?promo=19 --- ## Post #23 by @system I accept that there are several languages, now. But when it comes to connecting e uniform meaning to these strings of text we need to define the Golden Standard, so we all know what is meant. Or do you accept as expression of the meaning a string of text you do not understand? Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 [gfrer@luna.nl](mailto:gfrer@luna.nl) --- ## Post #24 by @ian.mcnicoll Hi Gerard, The gold standard in openEHR archetypes is always the primary authored language\. In practice many non\-English\-authoring authors will choose to provide an English translation but it is ultimately up to the consumer of the archetype to ensure that translations \(to any language\) are correct\. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office \+44 \(0\)1536 414 994 fax \+44 \(0\)1536 516317 mobile \+44 \(0\)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian\.mcnicoll@oceaninformatics\.com Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK Director/Clinical Knowledge Editor openEHR Foundation www\.openehr\.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL SCIMP Working Group, NHS Scotland BCS Primary Health Care www\.phcsg\.org --- ## Post #25 by @system I understand. But this is not the way the create a uniform meaning. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 [gfrer@luna.nl](mailto:gfrer@luna.nl) --- ## Post #26 by @thomas.beale I don't dispute that point, but the problem is the same no matter which language is the original language for a given archetype - it is just that different people do or maybe don't understand. If the editorial group for a particular archetype happens to be a bunch of mainly Russian docs, then the problem is not them understanding the archetype, but others may. I suppose we could require that EITHER an archetype is originally authored in English OR it is translated to English before publication, but I would be uncomfortable with that. It doesn't fit the reality of South America, eastern (Russian speaking) Europe, and other specific regions in the world - each of these regions, when sharing documents with each other tend to use the highest fidelity common language available to them - whcih could be Spanish, Russian, etc etc (it might also be English but I think there is no guarantee). - t --- ## Post #27 by @thomas.beale well that's true, but from an IT point of view, creating 'meaning' isn't done with language, it is done by placing concept nodes within an ontology in correct relation to other nodes \- the only 'true meaning' is: how does reality classify against an ontology\. Doing this with archetypes requires binding concept codes from SCT and/or other ontologies, where available\. Which is certainly a challenge we face, but it's not the same at the translation issue\. \- thomas --- ## Post #28 by @system Whatever people do locally, is their choice. As EN13606 Association, when we will publish artefacts, the meaning of things inside are either coded using a Reference Terminology and/or a list with preferred and well defined names, under the control of one editing group. Inside artefacts that are published for general use we must not allow meaning creep because of translation/language problems. Gerard Freriks +31 620347088 [gfrer@luna.nl](mailto:gfrer@luna.nl) --- ## Post #29 by @system Semantics isn't about reference or preferred or well defined names pre - established. It's about how can my system can understand the meaning of your system without any previous agreement. What did you mean and not what you said. Thesauri help us to understand each other, but only if i can understand the context. The main challenge of information systems is to link environmnt to language. Environment is the info model, theontology of a certain domain. Terminology is more universal, can be the língua franca , but it must be referred to a particular context. --- ## Post #30 by @Koray_Atalag I totally agree with Ian here\.\.\.The gold standard should be the original language \- whatever that is\. And it is the responsibility of the people who are using it clinically \(even on paper form\) to make sure the meaning is not altered\. I think the same argument would apply to Merck Manual which is originally published in English \(us\) but has translations in almost any language on which many clinicians depend on when making decisions\.\.\. QA by a reputable body \(in this case CKM editorial group\) is essential\. Terminology is always good but not essential and I suspect there may be conflicting ontological sources out there \(e\.g\. describing same concepts in a different way\)\. Cheers, \-koray --- ## Post #31 by @heather.leslie I don't think there is any doubt that the original language is 'king' \- after all in captures the intent of the authors best\. Translations are ideally added after the archetype is stable and has been published\. We saw a perfect example of how translation efforts can go to waste when an archetype is translated while still in draft, where all that was safely salvageable of the German and Arabic translations for the Adverse Reaction archetype were a few nodes when the content was significantly changed\. However also keep in mind that while we are collecting quite a number of translations for both draft and published archetypes, we have not yet had any translations verified \- they are only the work of an individual so far\. So part of our ongoing process will be to organise reviews of each translation to ensure that the translation is also true and safe\. Similar processes are in place in CKM for terminology binding reviews \- to enable those with terminology insights to ensure that where they are bound in an archetype, they are the best for the job\! However the original question Ian raised was around how to be more efficient in managing our translations and I'm not sure that there is an easy answer here\. Translators will hopefully be able to guide those of us severely limited to English\. Domingo Liotta translated an archetype recently into Argentinian Spanish and when asked he confirmed that there was nothing specific to the Argentinian translation that was not appropriate for the Spanish parent, so this single translation has been uploaded for both\. This is a bit clunky but probably the way we will have to work in future, gradually understanding where we might leverage strong language similarities and where this will not be possible\. Whether we can upload a translation for a parent language and update certain nodes in a specific child language does not necessarily appear to be a less complex operation\. We will learn, no doubt\! Cheers Heather --- ## Post #32 by @system Hi Heather and all, I think translation is only one of the alternative concepts for the original\. Validation for translated artefacts is much controversial, because there are many answers for it and no perfect answer especially in subjective matters\. Terminology system provides most possible candidate in semantics, but it is limited as Thomas Beale said\. Each localisation committee could be engaged in translation management to add some proof of validity\. What about such community proof for? Best regards, Shinji Kobayashi --- ## Post #33 by @heather.leslie I think it an excellent idea that the localisation committees take on responsibility for initial translations and subsequent validation of translation thru reviews\. Always happy to delegate\. Let me know when Japan is ready to go:\) And in the case of families of languages, perhaps these localisation committees can collaborate to solve our translation burden \- to seek efficiencies instead of everyone reinventing the wheel for each translation\. Regards Heather --- ## Post #34 by @system Funny, that coincidentally IHTSDO sent today an email recruiting someone of its community to a new job position of content change coordinator, someone to manage the end to end process of any change of snomed ct, including mapping to Spanish and other languages and special country extensions\. Quality assurance of mappings and translations are crucial to the success of any federated initiative like ours\. IHTSDO is an example how hard can it be to work in a distributed, multilingual and multicultural environment\. They have been developing tools and lots, lots of policies to make of Snomed ct a universal clinical reference terminology\. So far, everybody knows, they are still far from it and the organization faces a lot of criticism because of the poor outcomes\. To delegate the governance of archetype translations to the localization committee is really a good idea, Shinji, but again, the worst is not to translate, it's to maintain\. Without a sustainable business model, that assures resources to us to have someone, and not a voluntary committee, in charge of managing the whole process, I'm afraid this process could lack on continuity and quality\. I am the meaning \(and I think Koray too\), that the localization committee first task is to seek for sponsors for our national chapter\. Long\-term sustainability is my main concern\. I don't think we should already commit to take over \( huge\) tasks like that\. Not before we have governance of all process\. There are some many issues that have arisen since we began to discuss the new business model and federation issues, that I think our unconference late this year should be take place earlier\. Governance and not technical aspects are for us, countries that want to adopt openEHR as the national reference, the main issue we'd like that the localization committee could discuss now, because all the other things depend on it\. Regards Jussara Rötzsch Director, OpenEHR Foundation --- ## Post #35 by @system Hi Jussara, Yes, sustainability is important to keep quality\. However, every big open source software project started in personal or small voluntary community\. I do not agree to raise up local community requirements, because no one has enough resources to do so\. Ultimately, government or NPO/NGO would be obliged to assure the quality, but government do not work without proven merits on it\. I am talking about feasibility to make an NPO to maintain openEHR\.jp within our Japanese community and we will have an pre\-meeting in these weeks\. I am an optimist and an evangelist of open source software movement\. If someone think our artefacts lack something, he/she would join us to fix it like Wikipedia\. In my experience on open source software community, good projects have power to attract to manage, and I also believe openEHR is enough good to collect people\. The ideal proof would be 'government proof' or 'government authored committee poof'\. 'Community proof' could provide some indication to decision for developers and clinicians\. Actually, there are not so many Japanese translated archetypes, I am not afraid to maintain them\. I would be very happy to fill up my capacity to deal such proof\. Best regards, Shinji Kobayashi --- ## Post #36 by @system Hi Shinji I´m glad to find other evangelists of OpenEHR cause! I´m doing that for past eight years in Brazil, and apparently it has worked because Brazil is officialy adopting both archetypes as aslo OpenEHR RM officialy in our national ehealth program. But just because of that my responsiblility has grown exponentially and I have to make sure that OpenEHR will be a stable, sustainable and business driven organization. Pleople who criticize this option (not only HL7ers) says that to adopt openEHR is risky, because it´s a voluntary organization who hasn´t support of big players (Other open sources initiatives are supported by big companies, like Oracle for instance, or even by government, like here in Brazil, where the government has an opensource policy). The decision of the foundation to change its business model was among other things to raise support for our evangelists from the communities where they pray... It´s not possible for one person that isn´t supported by his employer or by academia to dedicate her/his time to do, for instance, quality assurance. You know that the main reason we have so few archetypes already published it´s because only a few people are de facto commited to this task. I think the quality assurance should be one job of the operational group that will do paid work for the foundation. That means a work for the foundation and not for a committee. Like Apache, we must have get support and who else besides government or big comapnies can do that? Once again I´m using IHTSDO, which is totally supported by governments as an example. It cannot be a perfect one, but it´s better than every other SDO (which, as a matter of fact also live of government grants, don´t they) Regards Jussara --- ## Post #37 by @system Hi Jussara, In Japan, the government have also appealed to promote open source software, but they say OSS would not be applied because of lack of big company supprot by the same mouth, too\. They have tendency to believe US big company rather than Japanese serious community\. Otherwise, only I can do is to publish my artefacts with open source software condition to be available for everyone and I think I have responsibility to my artefacts under Apache 2 license condition\. If I thought I have responsibility to 'harakiri' on my aretefacts, I cannot do anything and others, too\. I would take over this the next Japanese pre\-meeting\. Big company support is very attractive, but sometimes it is beginning of death of community\. Best regards, Shinji --- ## Post #38 by @system One thing worth mentioning, it is quite a simple matter translating an archetype compared to all of the terms as words or phrases (even fully specified words) as words or phrases are used in many contexts. Cheers, Sam --- **Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/translation-approaches/15134 **Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/translation-approaches/15134