David More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Yes, I agree. Phew! Having agreed on the need, I urge you and anyone and everyone else interested in this issue to make constructive contributions to establishing that process (or processes). The openEHR people have made a very reasonable start on this, but there is more to be done, and more to be worked out. So let's do it. > I agree they should be public and adaptable and updatable under some > appropriate controls > - just as all major FOSS initiatives are. Yup. Tim C > 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
