It seems reasonable for the two of us to at least come up with something that other people might look at. If we start with 20 people, nothing can happen - it is like starting with a standards meeting. And software engineering shows that teams of more than 5 don't work. I like the WWTA concept - I wonder how to make that into an alternative to committee-based standards?! I also agree that standards need to be formalised - I have never been against it, only _bad_ standards being formalised.
- thomas On 25/11/2010 00:02, Stef Verlinden wrote: > Dear Grahame, > > > Op 23 nov 2010, om 14:24 heeft Grahame Grieve het volgende geschreven: > >> It appears that Tom and I may jointly develop a variant >> of ISO 21090, that features the same basic semantic >> content, but in a format that is suitable for use in systems >> rather than for exchange. It will describe clearly how to >> interoperate using 21090, but will be suited for system/case >> design. > This is really great news. > > Still I think that the result of your joint effort should be adapted by > representatives of the communities who are discussing on this list (and > preferably some others to) and if all agree on it bring it further into the > formal standardization process. Maybe would coudl see it then as a WWTA > (World Wide Technical Agreement). To answer you question, important technical > agreed standards should still become formal standards because, at least here > in Europe, they can be incorporated in laws. Informal standards or technical > agreements can't. And that's an important issue when governments are going to > make (or adapt) legislation about EHR's > > I also wonder what the others think of this effort. People in Ed's group or > the DCM people should possibly benefit from this as well or do they see that > differently? > > * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101125/2a85bd43/attachment.html>
