Dear Karsten, For several reasons I was using that special nasty word " revolutionary".
-1- To be able to get 'plug-and-play' interoperability as opposed to the very big problem of implementing many messages across vendors in a uniform way, is REVOLUTIONARY. -2- To have a standard with these capabilities that signals a paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts by definition are a "disruptive technology". Meaning all old, present, working systems have to be changed completely, rewritten even, to have the full benefit of this new paradigm. This is my second reason to use the word REVOLUTIONARY. Perhaps people become reluctant to read about it, deploy it, etc. But what can I do? Tell a lie? Play nice? With all reservations I will play honest. Gerard -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, MD Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252544896 M: +31 620347088 E: gfrer at luna.nl Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 On 6-mrt-2007, at 13:01, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > Anything dubbed "revolutionary" raises cautionary red flags. > > As Adrian Midgley once aptly put it: > > Ars longa, IT brevis. > > Karsten -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20070306/ab5f6178/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
