On Fri, 11 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > And said article has been linked for 7 months, November 18th 2000 on LMN:
> I did not remember that.
>
> > Karsten, it seems wasteful to me to duplicate what has already been
> done and is the whole point of
>It seems wasteful to me, too.
Hi all,
Our particular failure to construct one "projects database" highlights
the many obstacles that remain despite our best intentions to be "open"
and to collaborate.
> But, what do you expect me to do ? There is two people. Both
> have a database of projects. Both have some standing in the
> community. Both offer me any assistance and access that I
> need.
We are unable to collaborate more fully because of various "proprietary"
considerations, myself included. Yes, the decision to "name" or "brand"
reflects "proprietary" motivations which impedes collaboration.
Having the ability to easily interchange data between databases will
help. I will be working on that feature for the OIO Library in the next
few hours.
> If the two maintainers cannot get together and agree what
> am I to do ? I want to contribute and not fight on either
> side for the "most right" way.
Think of the "entries" in these "projects databases" as medical records
and consider the opportunity to construct a simulated "test bed" for
portable medical records as we move these "project listing" from the OIO
Library to SPIRIT to LinuxMedNews. :-) Why not take advantage of this
opportunity?
The portable medical records feature has been available through the OIO
system for six months now. The OIO Library already demonstates to
usefulness of OIO's unique "plug-and-play" web-forms and full access trail
logging. Now, we can also show the portable medical records feature.
> What I will do, however, is lobby both sides to add
> Open Format easy-to-use import/export facilities.
You got it.
> I don't care who "owns" which database holding what
> content.
For the OIO Libray, all contents are available under the copy-left Design
Science License.
> What I care about is the content itself.
> As long as I am able to contribute items that are
> henceforth covered by an Open Content license and as
> long as I can conveniently export the database content
> in a structured format I am OK with it.
I agree. This is exactly analogous to the requirement for medical record
systems where clinicians and patients need to be able to move data from
one information system to another. If we cannot support this for the
projects database, we might as well forget about it for medical reoords.
I don't know if GEHR and FreePM are ready to participate but I am most
interested in finding out from Thomas and Tim whether they are
interested.
Best regards,
Andrew
---
Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes
TxOutcome.Org (hosting OIO Library #1)
Assistant Clinical Professor
Department of Psychiatry, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center
University of California, Los Angeles
