Hi Horst,
I think you mis-understand the purpose of the IBM documents and fail to appreciate the work was done over 8 years ago when the now available tools and approaches were still evolving. (Think of the level of web penetration then and now!)
What we did in those reports was identify, describe in some detail, place a priority on and try to group logically the functions required to best support running a general practice.
It was intended to be technology neutral in all senses - to permit developers to adopt what ever platforms and tools they desired to create an implementation. It was never intended to be a developers 'cook book' and to translate directly to a system - there is an intervening technical design step - and that's the one we expected the developers to do. We did however indicate areas of data etc that needed to be managed as I recall.
I believe, on the basis of many comments over the years from GPs, we got it close to right at the level we were working. It would be good if talent's such as your good self could undertake the next steps - especially in the open-source environment and finally bring it to fruition. It still seems to me that there are aspects of the functionality we suggested that have not been achieved - but I may not be familiar with the very latest. My latest look a few years ago certainly showed there was not much implemented we had not identifed.
With modern development techniques it should be easier now that it looked then.
Cheers
David
---- Dr David G More MB, PhD, FACHI Phone +61-2-9438-2851 Fax +61-2-9906-7038 Skype Username : davidgmore E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:57:13 +1100, Horst Herb wrote: > On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:43, David More wrote: >> Could you explain just what you mean for those of us who are a bit slow? I, >> for one, have no idea what you are saying.... > > He is saying the same thing I said when it was published: little substance. > Nothing new that wasn't known before, very expensive way to put that on > paper, but the extra mile that would have made it useful (namely detailed > implementation specs suitable for a real life program) was not done - at all. > > What we ended up with is a document that can be useful as introduction to > software developers completely agnostic of the medical domain, but is fairly > useless to those already in this business and familiar with our domain. > Meaning it is fairly useless exactly to those (only) people currently > actually writing medical software. > > If you want to end up with a functional computer program, you have to create > specs that lend themselves to implementation in software - and best done in a > way that can create some of the boring software bits automatically from the > specs (e.g. specs in UML). Not just the bird's eye view but the nitty gritty > details. > > Horst > > __________ NOD32 1.1343 (20051228) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com |
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
