A related question is whether an *implementation* language is needed
to facilitate discussion of health information systems. If we are
really discussing specifications or design, rather than
implementations, then doesn't the use of an implementation language
in this context blur this fundamental distinction (and, I would add,
tend to contribute to poor design)?
===
Gregory Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Before one gets the right answer, one must ask the right question."
-- S. Barry Cooper
On Sep 13, 2005, at 9:43 AM, A. Forrey wrote:
Greg:
you have to understand that standards are common conventions for
communicatiing about a spubject. The common misundertsatnding is
that they are "specifications". If you cant communicate clearly
then you are just not in the ballgame; the MDC just keeps us in the
ballgame rather than wandering blind and ignorant in the desert. It
takes all players communicating to get the bennies and there are
many wys to do that but this notice from ONCHIT is "Communicate or
you're not in the game!". The VistA Community has to figure out how
they will be in the WHOLE game; MUMPS deals with the technology
platform for VistA - that all; but without it you have to go out
and re-engineer the whole architecture at great cost (maybe the VA
uppercrust has that in mind, it remains to be seen). The log cabin
era is over, so that technology platform role of MUMPS is one
building bl;oick, so lets do it right. Sorry to be so blunt but
that reality.
Arden
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
