Hi All, Over the past several years I have discussed this issue with Tom Beale; on mailing lists, off mailing lists and in person.
The issue is that Framemaker is a proprietary and basically non standard document format. I fully understand that Tom enjoys the desktop publishing capabilities that it gives him and that he is familiar with the application. However, we the "open content" community end up with a proprietary format (Framemaker) and a dead-end format (PDF) for specifications that are advertised as being open and available. It is almost the the ultimate sarcastic humor (on the scale of Monty Python) that here we are trying to deliver computable healthcare information and our own specifications are locked up in these two formats. We cannot manipulate them into any kind of help files in order to integrate them into an application and god forbid we think about machine translation into other languages. So, I have to ask myself, as well as all of the members of the openEHR community. What is wrong with the international, open standard for document layout; (La)Tex? It seems to work well for all major publishers, why can't it work for openEHR? Why do we not insist on our documentation being in a format that is more useful to us as a broad and open community? Thanks for listening. --Tim -- *************************************************************** Timothy Cook, MSc LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook Skype ID == (upon request) Academic.Edu Profile: http://uff.academia.edu/TimothyCook You may get my Public GPG key from popular keyservers or from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090924/48bc7a24/attachment.asc>
