Sam Heard wrote: > SAM> Ocean have a .Net one which will hopefully be open source if we > get suffucient sponsors. The DSTC have one based on 0.96. It is likely > that there will be open source components but that the /open/EHR backend > will be marketed to ensure upgrading and maintenance in a streamlined > manner. We will have to wait and see how the space fills. Anyone wanting > to join the open source effort should look on the openEHR site. > > A few companies have built their own engines for use in > specific products, but openEHR Archetypes won't fly until there is a > range of open source and commercial data storage and retrieval engines > for it. > > SAM> I agree - but there as many are on the way and we have to get the > information structures standardised if we are going to share information > it is worth getting on with it!
It is a bootstrapping problem. Relatively few individuals or organisations are willing to put time, effort and resources into openEHR until they see that the whole thing works as promised, at least for a few proof-of-concept examples. Currently, the lack of a publicly available (eithe open source or commercial) openEHR storage/retrieval engine (aka kernel) is a showstopper - it is the hurdle between openEHR and a seeing-is-believing "tipping point". The thing that amazes and worries me is that I had exactly this same (email) exchange with Tom Beale in 2003. Now it is 2006 and still no generally available engine/kernel. Maybe there are lots in development, but that's what Tom said in 2003. Personally I'd like to see openEHR succeed, and its creators clearly believe that it will, but gee I wish they'd pull their fingers out and produce a working, documeneted openEHR storage engine, sooner rather than too late. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
