On 27-10-14 17:12, WILLIAM R4C wrote: > I agree Bert, > > OpenEHR is not a standards developing organization. It creates specifications. > These are found to be useful by some. > But are sometimes in conflict with standards....
Standards often come as an initiative from a non-standard developing organization. Standards often conflict with other standards. This gives choice, do you like centimeter or inch, do you use Whitworth or metric? You can't have both. But having a standard guarantees that if you buy a screw, it will fit on a bolt which you bought somewhere else. There are external companies which make money on testing conformance. But there must be stable conformance definitions to test against. Bert > > Vriendelijke groet, > > Dr. William Goossen > > Directeur Results 4 Care BV > +31654614458 > >> Op 27 okt. 2014 om 17:00 heeft openehr-technical-request at >> lists.openehr.org het volgende geschreven: >> >> Send openEHR-technical mailing list submissions to >> openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >> >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> openehr-technical-request at lists.openehr.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> openehr-technical-owner at lists.openehr.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of openEHR-technical digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials (Bert Verhees) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 22:09:54 +0100 >> From: Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl> >> To: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org >> Subject: Re: MedInfo 2015 openEHR tutorials >> Message-ID: <544D6322.9000607 at rosa.nl> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" >> >>> On 25-10-14 13:58, Thomas Beale wrote: >>>> On 24/10/2014 19:17, Bert Verhees wrote: >>>> OpenEHR is not a standard, it is a formal specification. >>>> >>>> http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards.htm >>>> ISO, What is a standard: >>>> >>>> "A standard is a document that provides requirements, specifications, >>>> guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure >>>> that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their >>>> purpose." >>> This is such a fun topic I wrote a blog post >>> <http://wolandscat.net/2014/10/25/what-is-a-standard-legislation-or-utilisation/> >>> on it :) >>> >>> - thomas >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-technical mailing list >>> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org >>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >> I replied following to it: >> >> Thomas, you write: ?They still publish documents, not computable >> artefacts, standards have no maintenance team, no issue reporting >> capability and no update release strategy.? >> >> This not true, at least not at ECMA and ISO. >> >> 1) Example in the standard for Microsoft OOXML are XML Schema?s (XSD) >> included. So they deliver computable artefacts. >> >> 2) They do not only publish standards, but organize international >> teamsmeetings of people which create/edit the standards. A standard in a >> specific version is stable, it cannot change, it would be unusable if it >> was not stable. >> >> 3) Maintenance, ISO standards can get updated, there are even fasttracks >> , so not the complete standard has to be talked through. An update, of >> course, gets a distinguishable version/name/id. >> >> What you write about OpenEHR doing much better as a defacto standard is >> not fully correct. >> >> Example: I am missing some computable artefacts. For example, we have >> waited five years before the RM-XSD was published in a correct way, and >> still there are some inconveniences in it. There were errors in that >> XSD, I emailed about it years ago. Now it has been revised, but not >> fully, there are still errors I reported in 2009. >> It is also not optimal. For example by using xs:sequence instead of >> xs:choice, and so enforcing a useless sequence of properties. There are >> some more issues, I do not want to discuss them now. >> >> Also, the XSD for OET is still not published, and it is used in software >> and by developers. How long are we using templates by now? 10 years? >> >> OpenEHR seems to be in some parts a moving target. A quality-institute >> as ISO would not allow this. There are some quality-requirements used by >> ISO. The standard is not only created by the designers (stakeholders), >> but by worldwide teams and it becomes accepted by vote of the voting >> members of ISO. >> >> I would welcome if OpenEHR would become a standard, not only because >> many governments do not invest in non-standards, but also for the >> quality requirements standardization-bodies pose and for having >> worldwide non-stakeholding teams looking at it. I think this is important. >> >> Bert >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141026/d43045e1/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> End of openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 32, Issue 62 >> ************************************************* > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
