Hi Tim,
And the point I am making is that there needs to be a process for managing the quality, utility and longevity of the archetypes if this is to succeed - it won't happen by accident I believe.
I agree they should be public and adaptable and updatable under some appropriate controls - just as all major FOSS initiatives are.
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, 09 Jan 2006 10:22:32 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: > David More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> BTW - where is the implementation you mention in point 3?. >> >> "all core technologies have a working open-source implementation *at >> release*" > > The simple answer is that openEHR cannot be considered a core technology until a complte open source tool chain is available, including a working and complete openEHR engine/kernel. My recent posts have aimed at pointing out that the archetype definitions also have to be open sourced, not just teh software that interprets them. AFAIK, the openEHR don't have any problems with these ideas, but nor are they claiming that openEHR it is already a core technology - just that it is a candidate for such a role. > > Tim C > > > __________ 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
