Hi Andrew,
Glad that is clear. What impact do you see this document making on what you do and how you do it..that seems to me to be where the rubber hits the road as they say.
Put another way - what guidance other than the need to use Standards where available and relevant - and to plan for a Services Orientated Future - which to document says is a few years away - have you got out of this?
Interested in your comments
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, 03 Apr 2006 15:38:57 +1000, Andrew N. Shrosbree wrote:
> David,
>
> If I am not the intended audience than I must ask 'who is?'. I have responsibility for technical
> architecture, some API programming and for the assessment of new technology. I must advise the
> CEO about how things work, and how they fit into the context of the industry for which we provide
> solutions.
>
> Yes, I do see Argus as having a need to conform.
>
> I cannot see the CEOs of most businesses falling in line until they can be reassured by their
> techies that this stuff is all doable, scaleable, won;t cost a fortune, and that we can find the
> staff to do it. I certainly have insufficient data upon which to base an informed opinion.
> A
>
>
> David More wrote: > Hi Andrew,
>
>> Read the document closely and you may see you are not part of the intended audience!
>>
>> Audience includes
>>
>>
>> - Enterprise architects and solution architects, concerned with developing enterprise
>> architectures or specific solution architectures; they should read all sections of this
>> document.
>> It seems to me they are talking mostly about new solutions - and the pathway for legacy systems
>> is not made clear - or would you see the Argus design as a "specific solution architecture"
>> that needs to conform?
>>
>> I am surprised this is not for solution developers and vendors (wonder why no mention) - maybe
>> the next - less stratospheric version - the one you think may help you?
>>
>> Don't forget to send your comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> 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, 03 Apr 2006 14:48:11 +1000, Andrew N. Shrosbree wrote:
>>
>>> Oliver,
>>>
>>> I have just waded through this tome and have a few opinions. These should be taken more as
>>> personal observations rather than a litany of criticisms, because I genuinely applaud NEHTA'S
>>> efforts to define the context within which they will be defining interoperability standards.
>>>
>>> That said, I have a sense that this document was written by a committee, whose motto is not
>>> "build it, and they will come", but rather "talk about it and they will follow". Yes, it
>>> gives a
>>> very thorough description of the framework within which NEHTA sees itself operating, defining
>>> a
>>> common nomenclature and contextual framework. It is also a good example of what you get when
>>> people are not required to work according to a commercial deadline, to produce something that
>>> actually works (or are being paid by the hour). As an experienced user of software design
>>> patterns, I appreciate the need to have a conceptual framework for software design. What the
>>> people who depend upon me for though is working solutions, in non-geological time. Multi-
>>> modular
>>> computer applications may start out with a statement of intent, but many evolve their little
>>> rules and regulations as the system grows in response to user needs. What this NEHTA document
>>> attempts to define is all the possible compliance and conformance rules to be faced by anybody
>>> who embraces SOA. Only by section 5 did I feel it was starting to come alive, because the
>>> academic waffle provides a diaphanous framework against which one could not possibly hope to
>>> benckmark a real, concrete software design.
>>>
>>> I'm happy to give NEHTA the benefit of the doubt for the moment, but I long for the day when
>>> somebody actually produces a few solid, open source components that demonstrate conformance to
>>> their standards in way that is easy to benchmark. In this document NEHTA have still not
>>> produced
>>> something that we, the developers who must build the blocks, can use as any sort of guide.
>>> This
>>> is not a standard - it is a statement of the context within which a standard will be defined.
>>>
>>> In short: this may be well received at academic conferences, but is no bloody good to me yet.
>>> This document is of even less use to consumers of IT services, like you. But I guess it's a
>>> start, because it directs our communal gaze towards the same point of light in the heavens.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oliver wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David
>>>> More
>>>> Sent: Monday, 3 April 2006 10:36 AM
>>>>
>>>> If you browse the document you will see the "common enterprise language" is a high level
>>>> description of how language is to be used for interoperation between health care entities -
>>>> it
>>>> is not to do with programming languages I don't think - if that was what you were asking.
>>>>
>>>> ****************
>>>>
>>>> I didn't understand very much of the document in terms of what it means for us in general
>>>> practice communicating with patients, each other or with the rest of the health system.
>>>>
>>>> Can somebody who believes that they do understand what this document says please at some
>>>> point
>>>> give us a one page summary of how they think it may influence developments in information
>>>> systems that GPs use?
>>>>
>>>> Oliver Frank, general practitioner
>>>> 255 North East Road, Hampstead Gardens
>>>> South Australia 5086
>>>> Ph. 08 8261 1355 Fax 08 8266 5149
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected]
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected]
>>
> -- Andrew N. Shrosbree B.Sc, B.Ec Technical Director ArgusConnect Pty Ltd
> http://www.argusconnect.com.au Suite 4, Greenhill Centre, Mt Helen Victoria, Australia Tel: +61
> (0)3 5335 2214 Mob: +61 (0)415 645 291 Skype: andrewshroz
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1467 (20060402) 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
