kuang oon wrote:
>
> On 15/07/2006, at 10:29 PM, Tim Churches wrote:
>
>>
>> kuang oon wrote:
>>>>> layer 4: Simple health electronic exchange protocol (SHEEP)- is the
>>>>> Level 4 interoperable health exchange data format amongst a
>>>>> plurality of
>>>>> systems using disparate coding systems / ehr architectures. It is
>>>>> longhand natural health language segmented by pragmas. Instead of the
>>>>> subject-verb-object syntax of conventional English, it uses
>>>>> storyline-genre-subject-{key-value predicates}. The design goal being
>>>>> that the SHEEP document that a human read is good enough for the
>>>>> computer. Look ma - no codes!
>>> I see current hospital discharge summaries meant for human
>>> eyes tweaked to be sheepshaped for both man and machine. SHEEP
>>> interoperability is about leveraging on the massive sunk costs of
>>> existing and about to be implemented health systems across the entire
>>> health spectrum.
>> ...
>>> On 14/07/2006, at 7:36 AM, Ian Haywood wrote:
>>>> Can you publish a formal spec, Kuang?
>>>>
>>> Yes, asap on a sheep oriented website....
>>
>> Kuang,
>>
>> A technical question: Are SHEEP documents small enough to easily be
>> stored entirely in Random Access Memory to facilitate fast retrieval?
>>
>> Tim C
>>
>
> Hi Tim,
> Definitely. I just measured the byte size of a number of sheep
> documents from my own clinical practice. Typically a reasonably good
> clinical summary - including all admin data is around 1300 to 1500
> bytes. What I recommend is that you create the following 3
> Hashtable/Dictionary objects with patient id as key and respectively
> the sheep document string as value, the doclescript representation of
> sheep as value and the fully qualified docles (representing the
> doclescripts) as values. Alternately create 1 Hashtable in RAM with the
> patient id as key with value being another Hashtable with the keys of
> 'sheep' 'doclescript' and 'docle'. How many records have you got? On
> the same database you would have records with the following fields 1)
> sheep 2)the doclescript representation of the sheep and 3)the fully
> qualified docles derived from the doclescript. What's the hurry? I
> would have thought that there is greater flexibility persisting the data
> on sql tables. And I know a good patient id system.
Thanks for your earnest reply, Kuang, but now I just feel mean, because
my question was not framed in good faith, but rather to poke (um,
gentle?) fun at your choice of names.
Seriously, though Kuang, I think that your ideas have merit and are
worthy of further exploration, but you create barriers for yourself by:
a) choosing quirky names for your idea which are not redeemed by any
particular wittiness. "DOCLE" is OK I suppose but it makes me think of
"yokel" every time I hear the name, and I have observed the same
reaction in others (with no prompting from me) who hear of it for the
first time. Having Samo the smiling green three-haired fish as the
logo/mascot doesn't help. Then there was something called "MyEmperor" as
I recall. And now "SHEEP". In the best of all possible worlds, marketing
and image would not matter one iota, and ideas and products (and people)
would be judged purely on their true, intrinsic merits. But even a
casual glance at a newspaper reveals that we most definitely do not live
in an ideal world.
b) As I have pointed out many times before, because DOCLE and
DocleScript are both patented by you, in Australia, anyone (or any
organisation) wishing to explore the utility of or to help improve your
ideas or their implementation really do need to obtain a patent license
from you, before they even start to get involved or otherwise
contribute. If they plan to make a significant contribution, then they
need to get their lawyers to negotiate a royalty agreement with you. If
they don't do that, they have rocks in their head. Patent protection for
ideas cuts both ways - the State-backed monopoly on your ideas which
your DOCLE patents provide also create large potential barriers for
anyone wishing to work with you - it is the legal equivalent of a
razor-wire fence around your ideas - others can see what teh ideas are,
but can't touch them without a written, legally-binding invitation fro
you. As I have also opined in the past, a blanket royalty-free patent
licence would be the ideal welcome mat, but it is up to you as the
patent holder.
Tim C
PS Ah, Kuang, now I see that you have been more clever with your naming
than I first realised: "SHEEP" is all about how how health professionals
spin a yarn! Very good! But does it help if the yarn involves woolly
thinking?
TC
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
