I certainly don't think ebXML is "perfect" by any means. But even if we all agree on a single semantic framework, we still need the equivalent of XML, if not XML. Basically you have to tag your data some way. XML is reasonable. We don't ship data in XML format in PIDS or COAS (although we could), because it isn't normally necessary. The data is already "tagged". HXP should just gather the agreed upon standards and make very few of its own. Andrew Ho writes: > On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, David Forslund wrote: > ... > > > The hxp effort begins by indexing the various XML structures that > > > different free/open-source systems use. From there, we can discuss and > > > move toward standardization. This is my understanding and hope for the hxp > > > project. > > > > What about ebXML? This work is already done. > > Dave, > ebXML is fine too. > I believe the usefulness of XML lies in capabilities to map and > tranform semantics between various XML structures. In other words, if we > can all agree on a single semantic framework, then we don't need XML to > start with. > This is why I think hxp is an essential step - regardless of how perfect > ebXML may be. > > > Also, indexing various XML structures may not help much unless we > > understand the underlying semantics. > > Absolutely. Operationally, "understand" means developing artifacts to > transform between different representations and between related concepts. > I have described the need for these "form-to-form translators" in the > past. > > > > Rather than waiting for a single useful standard to come down from the > > > gods in the sky (or Washington D.C., HL7, etc), I think hxp offers a more > > > promising approach. > > > > These standards should be regarded as "gods in the sky" but rather > > groups of people like you and me > > Dave, I don't think they are anything like you and me :-). ?? Speak for yourself. :-) I work with some of those standards bodies.
> > > that want to work together to help in interoperability. > > Are you sure about that? I believe there is rampant conflict-of-interest > involved that makes their godly work hopeless. I don't think organizations that work in interoperability are conflicted any more than the rest of us. If you don't like what they are doing join them and change it. How are you going to reach interoperability without working with other and doing some give and take. > > > I appreciate what HXP is doing but it may only be yet another effort in > > this area. > > I believe hxp is the first free/open-source group working on > interoperability that has delivered a functioning test server! > This is simply not true. We have had PIDS running with open source interoperability since 1998. The whole point of PIDS/COAS/RAD/TQS is interoperability. These systems work and have for a long time. The fact that many have not adopted those standards doesn't mean that they didn't work. > > If it doesn't leverage the work done by many organizations and build on > > them, it will not be all that useful. > > Whether hxp will or will not leverage previous work and Whether it will > ever be useful rest in our hands. Any of us can decide to contribute to a > lowly-but-practical solution or to wait for salvation via gods. There is > no money to bribe/fund and no fancy titles to award/impress. Again, quite > different from how gods operate. > If it doesn't leverage other work, it will be yet another "solution" to the problem. Again, if we treat interoperability work by others as "work by the gods", then there is no real hope for interoperability, at least in my lifetime. You have to work for interoperability to get it. Many are, conflicts and all. I've seen almost no incentives or desire for the various projects represented here to have interoperability as a goal. HXP is a small step in this direction, but ignores all previous work. Dave > Best regards, > > Andrew > --- > Andrew P. Ho, M.D. > OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes > www.TxOutcome.Org >
