Hi! It was not intended as a remark towards new initiatives. Sorry for being unclear. You raise some good points Bert.
I tried to be balanced, encouraging new openEHR work and alternative implementations, there is always room for more, but at the same time encouraging people to first look at existing efforts and see if they can influence/modify/widen those to fit their needs before starting yet another effort since the openEHR community has still has many other software needs that would be worth spending time on. Regarding ADL2 parsers there was certainly room and a need for an Apache licensed one now. I understood Marand's reasoning behind releasing their ADL2 implementation under (A)GPL, but personally thought it was not the wisest licence choice for a component that we want to see maximal reuse and testing of, also in "industrial" settings. (Marand already knows my views on this.) So if there was something of a hidden remark in the message, it was more like "look, this is what may happen if you release reusable openEHR components under (A)GPL, people will need to redo the work mainly for licencing reasons". But as I said redoing work has benefits too, like exploring more options, learning, creating more choice and testing/validating/clarifying specifications in more ways. Having another ADL2 parser will make ADL2-adoption and specification even more mature. Personally I hope that also new web based archetype/templating tools (see http://www.openehr.org/news_events/industry_news.php?id=134 and https://goo.gl/7Cd52R) in due time will shift more over from (A)GPL towards Apache 2. Pieter &Co's work might influence that shift by provoking thought and/or providing an alternative ADL2 underpinning. :-) Best regards, Erik Sundvall Ph.D. Medical Informatics. Information Architect. Tel: +46-72-524 54 55 (or 010-1036252 in Sweden) Region Östergötland: [email protected] (previously lio.se) http://www.regionostergotland.se/cmit/ Linköping University: [email protected], http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ P.s. Regarding archetype editors, when we at Linköping University, LiU, (ages ago) created the first Java based archetype editor, we got several comments regarding duplication of work etc. Sure there was already an editor for the windows platform, but in addition to creating a less platform dependent solution one of the educational motives of creating another archetype editor was to get better in depth knowledge of openEHR and archetyping. (Learning by doing/creating can certainly still be a reason to "redo" openEHR work.) Also we wanted to test other user interfaces, terminology binding assistance etc. A side effect of the new editor was that the openEHR specifications got clarified in many ways where the different editors (based on the sam spec) behaved in different ways. (We would also like to think that the "competiton" helped the exisiting windows-based editior correct some of it's bugs and inspired some altered functionality.) Later the funding for the LiU archetype editor ran out and maintenance stopped, partly because we had not worked hard enough to get any wider developer community involved, neither commercial nor volunteer-based. (The openEHR community was also a lot smaller then) So one perspective would be to view the LiU effort as partly wasted effort. But then later another Java based editor from a Spanish university+company appeared (that editor it is still being maintained). We'd like to think that the LiU editor inspired that work in many ways and that many things/ideas from the LiU editor got reused. :-) On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Bert Verhees <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30-10-15 07:57, Erik Sundvall wrote: > >> I think the same goes for archetype/template editing tools, having a >> handful of tools explores more options and brings up more good discussions >> than having a single one, but having too many would potentially be a waste >> of developer effort. >> > A small remark, Erik, > > I don't know why you write this, looks in this way like a congratulation > with a remark. > > We have, for example, many editors for Java, text, documents, all kind of > things. I would not regard that as waste, but as innovation. > Competition keeps the quality high. > > For example, I am sure the effort of Pieter Bos improved the quality of > the work of Thomas, and there is nothing bad in that. > > Let thousand flowers bloom. Encourage many ideas from many sources. > > Best regards > Bert Verhees > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-implementers mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-implementers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-implementers_lists.openehr.org
