...I echo Jim's remark--it is not so simple... However, if you distill the soup down to the essential ingredients, standards making is a market management process at the end of the day. A market can be just one seller and one buyer, but that degenerate case isn't very interesting.
Standards making can be done outside of the 'market place'. There are plenty of cases in point on that. Even so, I believe what is motivating this discussion here is intimately bound to a market of traders. All the esoteric rationale being offered here is secondary to the fundamental reality that controlling the marketplace drives (finances) standards makers. Even the open software movement with all its trappings is a market control strategy. MUMPS is an ANSI X11 standard, NOT X3, entirely as a tactic to control the market by limiting threats to the embryonic MUMPS language. Vendor participation in the MDC was at its peak when the VENDORS were highly motivated to control the marketplace. As their interest in that passed, then those vendors withdrew from active participation, and sent in their second tier representatives. The MDC subsequently bogged down and its efficiency declined dramatically. Revival of the MDC is not a possibility. The maintaining conditions for that activity have vanished, and can't be reinstated. (If you can, call Alan Greenspan. He needs your assistance.) If a new marketplace is identified, one with economic features that will attract a lot of flies, the a new form of marketcontrol--which may be called standards making--could emerge. I don't see this present discussion developing clear and compelling descriptions of that marketplace. I believe that this is a vital first step. Making this a mandatory and persistent agenda item on all future meetings and discussions can do wonders for advancing the interests of all who care about our industry. Regards, Richard. > > From: Jim Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/03/11 Fri AM 12:41:23 GMT > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MDC Revival > > Nancy wrote: > >The > >speed and reliability of M has been proven over and over and there is no > >reason that VistA or M should be killed by neglect or that the VA should > >spend whatever countless millions of our tax dollars to migrate VistA to Java > >just because people are running around telling all of the politicians and > >anyone who will listen that "M is dead". > > I totally agree. > > However, the situation is not so simple. VistA clearly needs a new front end > and Java is > the leading candidate for that so far. Since a Java frontend could be cross > platform, it > is much to be preferred over the current CPRS. > > It appears that the transition away from MUMPS on the backend will occur > gradually over a > number of years with MUMPS and the VistaLink broker providing the backend > database and > processing as long as necessary to maintain performance and reliability. That > could be a > very long time. > > It might be long enough to show that a web based solution like M2Web would > provide a much > simpler and less expensive solution. ;) > > >An active MDC is proof positive that M isn't dead. > > I disagree. The proof and the reason MUMPS is not dead is GT.M/Linux (and > other Open > Source implementations of MUMPS). With it we have a high performance reliable > server-side > foundation for running existing MUMPS applications such as VistA and > enhancing them and > developing new applications with a wide range of technologies using pretty > much any > additional programming languages desired. > > >We need it and the sooner the better. > > I think it is too soon to revive the MDC - unless you are thinking of an MDC > that is > radically different in operation and purpose and function than the old one. > > The function of the MDC was to limit and channel innovation at the language > layer into a > common language definition so that vendors of MUMPS could compete only on the > basis of > price and performance and conformance to the standard, not on enhancements > outside the > standard and so they could not rely on vendor lock-in where applications were > written to > the standard. > > That all effectively ended when Intersystems acquired their major competitors > (DSM, DTM > and MSM). > > Now that we have Open Source MUMPS to work with, we can easily begin > innovating at the > language level again if any one cares to take the effort and do the > programming. I can > think of several new language feaures that could streamline web applications. > However, I > don't see this as a major priority right now. The language has a mature > functionality > already and there is plenty to do at the level of hospital information > systems and medical > records without changing the language underlying them. > > --------------------------------------- > Jim Self > Systems Architect, Lead Developer > VMTH Computer Services, UC Davis > (http://www.vmth.ucdavis.edu/us/jaself) > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Hardhats-members mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members > ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
