The previous work was not an attempt. It was a solution. I actually think the problem is that people don't want a solution to this problem.
Ultimately people may want to solve the problem but interoperability seems to be far down the list. I've never heard a critique of the OMG HDTF solution other than it is "too hard oor too complex". Actually it has been implemented by vendors, but they don't want their customers to know that they've implemented in many cases. The interoperability problem is hard and is not easily simplified. Dave > ------------Original Message------------ > From: Elpidio Latorilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: openhealth list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, Jun-8-2004 7:42 AM > Subject: Fwd: Re: medical systems framework > > > Hi David, > > thanks a lot. Your statements below just verified mine that the cause of the > problem is not the technology. And unfortunately, exactly this non-technical > cause will also make it very difficult to revive previous attempts (e.g. > corba) if not totally prevent its revival :( We are all human beings. > > However, the previous post of Wayne gives us hope. Lets do it in a pragmatic > way. If not now then later. If not with method #1 then perhaps with method > #2. > > Elpidio > > On Tuesday 08 June 2004 06:01, David Forslund wrote: > > So the CORBA IDL to do a lot of this already exists and has for almost 6 > > years. This could be translated into other technology if people would > > decide to doit. It also already exists in UML and is fairly easily mapped > > to other technology. XML-RPC is not the likely technology based on the > > actions of industry. It can be mapped to WSDL automatically, although that > > isn't the most desirable. > > > > Unfortunately, not too many people have chosen to implement the CORBA API > > even though there are several open source examples of it. > > > > Dave > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > >
