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?
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> David
>>
>> ----
>> Dr David G More MB, PhD,
FACHI
>> Phone +61-2-9438-2851
Fax +61-2-9906-7038
>> Skype Username :
davidgmore
>>
>>
>> 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-----
>>>> 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
> (0)3 5335 2214 Mob: +61
(0)415 645 291 Skype: andrewshroz
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1467
(20060402) Information __________
>
