> (please, no flame wars, below I am just trying to explain _my_ point of > view to Fred;-) > > There is no need to worry about a flame war. I am certainly dubious, but I take what you guys are doing and saying very seriously. It seems like you are taking a totally different approach to semantic interoperability than I generally favor.
My view is that semantic interoperability is simply a problem we do not have yet. It is the problem that we get after we have interoperability of any kind. This is why I focus on things like the Direct Project ( http://directproject.org) which solve only the connectivity issues. In my view once data is being exchanged on a massive scale, the political tensions that the absence of "true meaning" creates will quickly lead to the resolution of these types of problems. The OpenEHR notion, on the other hand, is to create a core substrate within the EHR design itself which facilitates interoperability automatically. (is that right? I am trying to digest what you are saying here). Trying to solve the same problem on the "front side" as it were. Given that there is no way to tell which approach is right, there is no reason why I should be biased against OpenEHR, which is taking an approach that others generally are not. If that is the right core value proposition (and for God's sake tell me now if I am getting this wrong) then I can re-write the OpenEHR accordingly. Regards, -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120218/0a9b3010/attachment.html>
