And certainly, a technology with no implementation is of little use,
and a standard that is difficult or impossible to implement is a poor
standard.
===
Gregory Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Education is a progressive discovery
of our own ignorance."
--Will Durant
On Sep 13, 2005, at 12:22 PM, A. Forrey wrote:
Greg:
The issue of "implementation language" is part of the "Enterprise
View, Life Cycle Principles" perspective on the whole VistA
architecture. The Open Source character of the effort and the model
base for the architecture being tied to the VA makes constraints.
Since the open value utilizes, for the present, the VA's design it
must accept the present VA model until a Common Data Model for the
Conceptual Content has been arrived at and then discussions about a
different design for implementation of the common model can be
entertained. There is latitude in different configurations for the
same architecture (different terminologies value set, and
referential data for different enterprises) for differing business
purposes. All of this is in the realm of "implementation" but does
involve some common agreements on components of the physical
architecture that keep the technical configurations relatively
limited. THat can all be managed by Life Cycle Principles and
Processes (consider the Capability Maturity Model Discipline from
the CMU-SEI VA study). An information architecture as complex as
VistA needs a discipline. Principles and Procedures can be applied
to a M environment as well as other environments and is relevant to
all aspects.
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
