And none of your examples are vertical industry IT standards. Mark Bezzina for Stds Australia pointed out to me that IT vertical standards are a totally different thing to every other kind of standard.
You're trying to portray Health IT as some kind of bizarre exemption, in that things are totally done in a weird way. But I don't think it's an exemption: I think most IT verticals have the same problem, which is that standards are being used as a stalking horse for research. Grahame On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Thomas Beale < thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > On 27/10/2010 22:32, Grahame Grieve wrote: > > Well, your specific comments certainly don't back your general statement > up. Looking at the question of the other industries, what specific standard > would you point to as an example we should follow, and how was it developed? > > > - safety goggles and other personal safety equipment > - nearly every part of a modern car that has safety implications for > passengers > - all telecoms signalling standards, including over radio, microwave > tightbeam, and cable > - any physical digital media, including DVD, Bluray, DAT, etc > - nearly every thing to do with the motherboard and disk bus in a PC > - VMEbus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMEbus) > - standards for energy efficiency of building materials > - standards for nearly all building components, including steel beams, > concrete and so on > - etc > > None of the standards used in these areas were developed in a committee > room with a random assortment of people who turned up a few times a year. > Instead, companies (e.g. Ericsson, Morotola, Toshiba, Philips, BMW, etc) > created products and brought them to market, and then brought the relevant > interoperability specifications to standards forums. > > E-health should follow the lead of e.g. the telecoms and computer > components industries and standardise on things that actually have been > shown to work. As I said earlier, it doesn't just have to be companies that > make things that work. Linux, Apache and the IETF standards came from > different places. But in all of these situations, the relevant standards > were first validated by implementation, deployment before being proposed as > a standard. What is happening in e-health is just bizarre. And the results > show it. > > - thomas > > > > Grahame > > On 28/10/2010, at 8:25, Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > wrote: > > On 27/10/2010 21:10, Grahame Grieve wrote: > > In all other industries, the quality of standards is > measured initially against public safety and then > against criteria of effectiveness and economic qualities. > > it seems you mean, by market testing. If not, do you have an example? > > > well yes and no. Products produced by big companies of course have to > undergo all kinds of testing to do with safety. With respect to fitness for > purpose, the market will certainly sort a lot out. But to get to market, you > have to have completely implemented and productised the offering - which > means going way past the paper stage. By the time standards agencies see > these things, they are guaranteed to 'work', the only question is to do with > what they interoperate with. > > In all other industries that i know of, standards are > created by a process whose inputs are already developed > and productised offerings from companies > > I presume you refer to non-it industries. In IT the picture is rather > more mixed. You certainly aren't describing the omg process, or the > itu process, or the w3c process here. > > > IT in recent decades has become quite poor, no doubt about it. Older > standards (e.g. older network standards) tended to have hardware > implications, and they simply could not be issued without having being > implemented somewhere. In more recent times, W3C does at least manage some > implementations of what it issues, but is mainly helped by major tech > companies implementing the standards. Nevertheless, standards like XML > Schema are still horrible, very weak formal underpinning, and hardly fit for > purpose (being a document-based idea trying to satisfy data representation > requirements). See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_Schema_Language_Comparison . > > OMG has better process than any SDO in e-health, but the output is not > always that inspiring. UML 2 is awful (try reading the 'infrastructure' and > 'superstructure' specs - you really have to wonder what drugs they were > taking), as is XMI. Which is why the Eclipse Modelling Framework (EMF) > sprung up in the modelling space - to provide a usable alternative to XMI. > > A truly valid comparison would be with IT standards in other vertical > markets. Insurance always strikes me as applicable. Do you have any > examples from these spaces? > > * > * I know a bit about investment, and there is to be sure, less to > standardise. The interesting comparisons I think are in construction, mobile > telephony, automotive, telecomms, etc. Standards just don't get issued as > paper with no products behind them in these industries. > > - thomas > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing listopenEHR-technical at > openehr.orghttp://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > > > -- > [image: Ocean Informatics] *Thomas Beale > Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informatics<http://www.oceaninformatics.com/> > * > > Chair Architectural Review Board, *open*EHR > Foundation<http://www.openehr.org/> > Honorary Research Fellow, University College > London<http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/> > Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer > Society<http://www.bcs.org.uk/> > Health IT blog <http://www.wolandscat.net/> > * > * > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > -- Grahame Grieve, CTO A: Suite 8a / 17 Burgundy St, Heidelberg VIC 3083 P: + 61 3 9450 2230 M: + 61 411 867 065 F: + 61 3 92450 2299 E: grahame at kestral.com.au W: http://www.kestral.com.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101028/a451a532/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ocean_full_small.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5828 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101028/a451a532/attachment.jpg>
