RE: Fw: Interoperability with HL7
|
Hi All, interesting discussions but I am afraid it does not take
use anywhere… Yes we all need (we=all of us) some better means to develop
health information systems; not only limited to EHR space but the whole
continuum including the long waited clinical applications which would help
doctors and other healthcare professionals make informed decisions etc. etc. I think what we are all up to is first a solid methodology to
build better systems – no brainer ha? OK look at other domains, well technical mostly, Telecom,
Tourism, Marine, even Entertainment and eGovt. As far as I know (I may be
slightly wrong though) neither of these is based on “special home delivery”
standards, BUT have adopted development methodologies which worked for
everybody – ultimately benefiting the consumer. Why on earth we are going
down this pathway? It is absolutely silly to have all these standards in same
direction with slight differences. I don’t understand how public money is
spent so irresponsibly…. Why don’t we just build systems with what we have and then
drive the standardisation process with real evidence…an evolutionary
rather than regulatory path. As a developer myself when I see ISO, CEN etc.
imposing constraints on me just because they are strong and have powers I feel
offended. How many of those people have really built systems, or let alone sat
at the same table with clinicians to talk about what they need, gone through procurement
processes with RFP’s that don’t even mention about interoperability?
I wonder… Having said these, I will soon publish the results of my
research on software maintainability of openEHR based vs. classical
OO/Procedural with RDMS model by building a full working application with C#
.Net. The implementation is almost complete and I am expecting to have initial
results by March. So let’s see if openEHR really works and future-proof! These
will be quantitative evaluation results by employing formal software
measurement. We need evidence gentlemen, why don’t we focus on that
first. IP is nonsense wrt. Archetypes and openEHR and everybody knows that. So what are the vendors and governments waiting for???
EVIDENCE!!! Cheers, -koray From:
openehr-technical-bounces@chime.ucl.ac.uk
[mailto:openehr-technical-bounces@chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Bert
Verhees
It is imperative that DCM's are absolutely free to use and
in the public domain. CEN/ISO and ANSI assure that with the standardisation IP
rules in general. DCM's must be absolutely free from IP problems, well
maintained in a formal, flexible, organisation, owned and controlled by all
that use them. OpenEHR as we know it today is a private company. (See under
Status: http://www.openehr.org/about/foundation.html) It is not the juridical status of a company that makes the
difference for the IP-status of something. If an organization is not-for-profit
or for-profit, both can issue all kinds of IP-licenses. |
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical