Andrew McIntyre wrote: >Hello David, > >Yes sure. we also now have our SOAP interface up and going. I am >running on it today. > >http://203.44.75.20:2000/SOAP/?WSDL > > >gives you the spec. Its a clone of our HL7 based interface so we know >it works from a functional point of view. > >I want to include that in capricorn, which is a simple matter of a >define, once its tested. > > Great Andrew but I cannot get it to come up at the moment. Bloody computers.
>>>-------- Original Message -------- >>>Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:54:25 +1100 >>>From: David Guest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> snip >>>We are not "proprietary" - we have an open interface and its all HL7, in >>>fact we are the only Australian Organisation with AHML HL7 >>>certification. The interface is published and open and we have developed >>>a client, which I mentioned to you last night, that would allow anyone >>>to run an interface. >>> >>> >>>So yes we have to charge someone, or we will not survive to continue to >>>do more R&D, but we have an open interface and a distributed >>>architecture and as you have seen support Email that is argus and >>>Thunderbird compatible. I am not sure how much more we can do to satisfy >>>peoples concerns. I am sure we could never satisfy John Dooley who wants >>>it all free - not sure who runs it. However by having an open interface >>>others can write applications that can be run over the interface so the >>>threat of lock in is less. We do however know how much work it took us >>>to get where we are so there is some safety in that ;-) >>> >>> >>>To criticize us as Propriety is quite unfair, we may be the only ones >>>that can do it now, but its playing into the corporate ie Healthlink's >>>hands to group us with them. We are busy getting to corporate pathology >>>defectors setup with systems that exceed the capability of the big >>>corporate Path labs, but I fail to understand resistance to a system >>>with open interfaces the runs with Australian standard message >>>formats????? No its never going to be free for everyone to use, but if >>>you can put up your own interface then we will send to it and so can >>>anyone else who can write the software that's capable of doing it. >>> >>>I don't think thats "lock in" >>> >>> Alright Andrew, I'll concede that you are proprietary ... but in a nice way. JD is a hard taskmaster but as a pathologist he knows he will have to pay the big bikkies even if it is free for all the little people. As an open source enthusiast I want it all and I want it now. The economics of scarcity works against this desire so I have to fall back to wanting it all, eventually. This is, however, much better than wanting it all and never getting it. So let me get this straight in my mind, you have a client that will sit on the GP's firewall and accept connections from other "authenticated" machines. There is no need for the data to be tunneled through a specific gateway. The application is fully standards and buzz word compliant and the specs for talking to it are fully detailed. Although this is a commercial product and the source code would never be released, it would be quite possible to build one's own server that would freely interoperate with you and others who build to the spec. If it is so, that's what I want. David -- "UFW. Deb does linux." _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
