Hi All, interesting discussions but I am afraid it does not take use anywhere...
Yes we all need (we=all of us) some better means to develop health information systems; not only limited to EHR space but the whole continuum including the long waited clinical applications which would help doctors and other healthcare professionals make informed decisions etc. etc. I think what we are all up to is first a solid methodology to build better systems - no brainer ha? OK look at other domains, well technical mostly, Telecom, Tourism, Marine, even Entertainment and eGovt. As far as I know (I may be slightly wrong though) neither of these is based on "special home delivery" standards, BUT have adopted development methodologies which worked for everybody - ultimately benefiting the consumer. Why on earth we are going down this pathway? It is absolutely silly to have all these standards in same direction with slight differences. I don't understand how public money is spent so irresponsibly.... Why don't we just build systems with what we have and then drive the standardisation process with real evidence...an evolutionary rather than regulatory path. As a developer myself when I see ISO, CEN etc. imposing constraints on me just because they are strong and have powers I feel offended. How many of those people have really built systems, or let alone sat at the same table with clinicians to talk about what they need, gone through procurement processes with RFP's that don't even mention about interoperability? I wonder... Having said these, I will soon publish the results of my research on software maintainability of openEHR based vs. classical OO/Procedural with RDMS model by building a full working application with C# .Net. The implementation is almost complete and I am expecting to have initial results by March. So let's see if openEHR really works and future-proof! These will be quantitative evaluation results by employing formal software measurement. We need evidence gentlemen, why don't we focus on that first. IP is nonsense wrt. Archetypes and openEHR and everybody knows that. So what are the vendors and governments waiting for??? EVIDENCE!!! Cheers, -koray From: openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Bert Verhees Sent: Thursday, 11 February 2010 2:08 a.m. To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: Fw: Interoperability with HL7 It is imperative that DCM's are absolutely free to use and in the public domain. CEN/ISO and ANSI assure that with the standardisation IP rules in general. DCM's must be absolutely free from IP problems, well maintained in a formal, flexible, organisation, owned and controlled by all that use them. OpenEHR as we know it today is a private company. (See under Status: http://www.openehr.org/about/foundation.html) It is not the juridical status of a company that makes the difference for the IP-status of something. If an organization is not-for-profit or for-profit, both can issue all kinds of IP-licenses. The company form has nothing to do with the licenses it issues Bert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100211/4ce215b3/attachment.html>
