Hi Ian,
There are agreed rules for the internet to develop its standards etc
See "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3" - at www.ietf.org. This is a governance document - no matter what you try to rename it as.
I am NOT against this sort of governance - I just want it clearly defined and to have a real chance of success. There are a huge range of possible choices - I sure don't know which would be best - but the objectives of longevity and trustworthiness - and the fact that there is a fair bit of effort required to get a workable starter set does imply some active management - at lest initially.
The brainpower the IETF could access also needs to be remembered - agreement with the standards and their success was in some degree due to the quality of the RFC documents.
BTW - where is the implementation you mention in point 3?.
"all core technologies have a working open-source implementation *at release*"
The answer to your question I will leave to others - my answer would be it depends on how far and in what ways the implementation has diverged from the initial release set..would that make sense?
I do think that the divergences and changes would need to be managed - and in an open source like model - would better ones upgrade the standard? - and how is that decided. As you know all significant FOSS projects have a lead group to make such decisions - who and how is this done / to be done with individual clinical archetypes? - Again a governance issue.
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 Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:35:35 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting David More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >> Where would the internet be without an effective IETF and W3C? I see all this >> a similar challenge which will need pretty wise heads to sort out. > Indeed, but it';s important to note the key to the success of the IETF has > been: > - all docs on the web, in plain text, for free. > - no patented tech > - all core technologies have a working open-source implementation *at release* > > IETF has no enforcement mechanism, instead they make sure it's easy and > cheap to comply with the standard, so people do. > > If a set of standard archetypes are widely published and free (in all senses), > people will use them for communication without the need for a big offical > (read expensive) governance stick. > AFAICT if people use site-specific descendant archetypes for their own storage > or within their organisation, that's not a disaster as they can "fall-back" > to the standard ancestor for exporting the data. Is that right? > > Ian > > __________ NOD32 1.1356 (20060108) 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
