> > Tim Churches wrote: >> So yes, nice that AHML exists, and they should continue their work and >> continue to be funded (by whom?), but don't treat their assessment of >> your messages as the Word of Deity-of-your-choice. Instead use it as a >> filter to target careful re-examination of the messages or aspects they >> flag as errors, but do use your critical faculties in doing so. >> >> Tim C >> >> > We at Argus have done just that. We pass our messages thru the AHML > free test facility and this is a guide to us to locate obvious errors > whilst development is taking place. A 'certification' at this stage > could not be justified on cost/benefit basis. > Ross Davey > > ArgusConnect
CC: Chris Lynton-Moll (Executive Director of AHML) Can this point be clarified for the list please Tom/Ross/Andrew/Chris? Is there any need for message "transport" solutions to be certified by AHML? As it is the clinical application (or clinical part of the application suite) that generates both the message and the application level ACKs (or doesn't), I've always been under the impression that it is the clinical application (or clinical part of the application suite) that needs to be compliant with AHML requirements? Surely message transport (integrity of security, speed through the system, cost, availability etc) is completely independent of the contents of the message, and should be tested accordingly? Thanks, Simon -- Simon James Publisher Pulse+IT M: 0402 149 859 F: 02 9475 0029 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: http://www.pulsemagazine.com.au PO Box 52 Coogee NSW 2034 _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
