Op 24-nov-2007, om 17:14 heeft b.cohen het volgende geschreven: > No. A good standard should ensure that all implementations that > satisfy it are > mutually interoperable (see, for example, the Whitworth stanard for > nuts and > bolts!). This requires that: > 1. the standard include the the tests that supposdly conformant > implementation > must pass; > 2. that test be necessary and sufficent to guarantee compliance; and > 3. Proven compliance to the standard be necessary and sufficient to > guarantee > interoperability. I agree. I guess I should have written 'a good standard' should have only one version that is used by all who underwrite that standard. Of course it must comply to these 3 requirements above
> One way to do this is to for the standard to overdetermine > implementation to > such an extent that exactly one implementation satisfy it. This is > how 'de > facto standards' work. > But I was of the impression that that was not the intention of the > international > health care community. Am I wrong? Can you please elaborate on this statement? My feeling is that your right but don't know what you mean exactly. As far as I know there are at least 3 different openEHR implementations on 3 different software platforms (Eiffel, .net and Java (and soon one on Ruby)), and these should be able to communicate seamlessly. So it seems that openEHR meets at least the first 2 the requirements and, if I'm correct, complying to the third is well on it's way Cheers, Stef > > Quoting Williamtfgoossen at cs.com: > >> In een bericht met de datum 24-11-2007 8:30:05 West-Europa >> (standaardtijd), >> schrijft stef at vivici.nl: >> >> >>> Op 24-nov-2007, om 7:45 heeft <A >> HREF="mailto:Williamtfgoossen at cs.com">Williamtfgoossen at cs.com</A> het >> volgende >>> geschreven: >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> Can you, in this light explain what Barry Smith is talking about >>> in his >>> HL7-watch blog (<A >> HREF="http://hl7-watch.blogspot.com/";>http://hl7- >> watch.blogspot.com</A>/, the >> text is also underneath). >>> Probably I don't understand it correctly, so if you could >>> enlighten me that >>> would be very helpful. >>> >>> >>> I think that we all agree that a good standard should have only one >>> implementation >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> Stef >>> >> >> Hi Stef, >> >> Yes, here you have a point! >> >> >> Sincerely yours, >> >> dr. William TF Goossen >> director >> Results 4 Care b.v. >> De Stinse 15 >> 3823 VM Amersfoort >> email: Results4Care at cs.com >> phone + 31654614458 >> fax +3133 2570169 >> Dutch Chamber of Commerce number: 32121206 </HTML> >> > > > -- > __ > Prof Bernard Cohen, Dept of Comp Sc, City Univ, Northampton Sq. > London EC1V 0HB tel: ++44-20-7040-8448 fax: ++44-20-7040-8587 > b.cohen at city.ac.uk WWW: http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~bernie > "Patterns lively of the things rehearsed" > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
