that I don't see how it is going to solve the proprietary motivation
problem. Proprietary companies are like Emperor Palpatine in that they
can have absolute power over who can interoperate with their system by
what is in their support contracts. They can veto, delay or demand
money for practically anything because the contract they write says
they can. The local system support, for fear of being cut off by the
mother ship, can be clueless or easily intimidated or just don't want
to do it. That's just one of many ways interoperability can be
torpedoed in a proprietary world. It doesn't matter what standards
real or future that reach all the way up to the GUI say. FOSS
eliminates many of these problems or makes them tractable. Again, I'm
probably preaching to the choir on this list.
-- Ignacio H. Valdes, MD, MS
-- Editor: Linux Medical News
-- http://www.linuxmednews.com
--- In [email protected], David Forslund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well there is a proliferation of "standards" in this arena and the
> WebServices effort is adding to this proliferation. I think the
> one positive note I see is that at least a portion of IBM is working
> on standards at a higher level. It would be nice to see the
> technical underpinnings of the IHII and the nature of its open source.
>
> Dave
> ivhalpc wrote:
> > Good point. Where IBM and all other efforts fail is these little
> > feifdoms controlled by shrew proprietary companies and skittish locals
> > who are afraid of 'voiding the support contract' with said companies
> > to get data out of local systems. The inevitable answer becomes: $15K
> > and minimum 90 days for data feed for one site.
> >
> > The whole proprietary system sucks because it crushes most
> > interoperability efforts by creating local mini-monopolies in which
> > local technical support, local legal, local leadership, proprietary
> > company technical support, proprietary company legal, proprietary
> > company sales, proprietary company leadership can either delay or
> > cripple any and all interoperability efforts by just saying no. In
> > effect, it takes a local Act of Congress to get these things done for
> > just one medical setting regardless of the technical feasibility or
> > not. I don't see how IBM or anyone else can deal with this.
> >
> > I wonder how this is all going to end and I fear it will end badly as
> > in Nationalized medicine in the US when costs continue to climb out of
> > control because of this kind of insanity.
> >
> > -- Ignacio H. Valdes, MD, MS
> > -- Editor: Linux Medical News
> > -- http://www.linuxmednews.com
> >
> > --- In [email protected], David Forslund <forslund@> wrote:
> > >
> > > IBM is part of one of the ONCHIT "winners". Also IBM is
> > participating in
> > > the HSSP effort. Sounds like normal operations for IBM.
> > > I've not found a technical reference to the IHII yet, although the
> > > ONCHIT required at least some of the response to be open source.
> > >
> > > Dave Forslund
> > > Nandalal Gunaratne wrote:
> > > > This is another interesting paragraph
> > > >
> > > > "A statement from IBM said the company will engage with industry
> > > > leaders. But it did not mention whether it will coordinate efforts
> > > > with the so-called Interoperability Consortium—a group of large IT
> > > > vendors including IBM, Cisco Systems Inc., Microsoft Corp. and
Oracle
> > > > Corp.—who banded together to call for open standards to be used in
> > any
> > > > national health information network."
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
SPONSORED LINKS
| Software distribution | Salon software | Medical software |
| Software association | Software jewelry | Software deployment |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "openhealth" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
