David Forslund wrote:
I don't see that your answer has much to do with my question. It isn't
about
where we have been but where we are going and why. I don't doubt the
need for an international forum but what will be the constraints on
participation?
If you are a member of OSHCA, you can
Will Ross wrote:
Molly,
I'm sorry for failing to review the OSHCA 2.0 release document sooner
in the quickly moving process that is underway. Let's just replace
all of my suggestions with the single observation that the Protem
Committee has assigned itself tremendous authority and is
--- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com, David Forslund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would be worthwhile. Interoperability is far broader than open
source, but FOSS could set the kind of example that is required.
This may (must?) involve working with those not involved in open source
but who
I have to agree with Dave here - I see it as problematic if OSHCA
doesn't see interoperability as a key issue. FOSS just gets you
applications and components. Interoperable FOSS gets you integrated,
componentised systems and environments. This is where the cost advantage
of FOSS will be
I do too. so let's all work to make it a key area of focus for OSHCA.
Joseph
Thomas Beale wrote:
I have to agree with Dave here - I see it as problematic if OSHCA
doesn't see interoperability as a key issue. FOSS just gets you
applications and components. Interoperable FOSS gets you
Tim.Churches wrote:
Sure, no argument there - the abstractions are potentially useful.
However, for a project like, say, CHITS (which is where this thread
started), considerable extra work involving considerable expertise is
required to convert the OMG HDTF specs from IDL form into
James,
Good ideaas far as VistA-Office is concerned we will be shortly be
working through the CCHIT/ONCHIT EHR criteria which includes
interoperabilityonce we have done that we will gladly
contribute/link to a common reference page.
Joseph
James Busser wrote:
On Apr 23, 2006,
Thomas Beale wrote:
Tim Churches wrote:
Thomas Beale wrote:
I have to agree with Dave here - I see it as problematic if OSHCA
doesn't see interoperability as a key issue. FOSS just gets you
applications and components. Interoperable FOSS gets you integrated,
componentised systems
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 07:35:47AM +1000, Tim Churches wrote:
I can't think of a
single health-related FOSS project that has written its own operating system,
or its own database management system
TkFP scores on the latter
or its own programming language and associated libraries
The
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the openhealth
group.
File : /oshca_inaugural-meeting_notice.sxw
Uploaded by : drcheah2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description : Notice of OSHCA Inaugural Meeting on 25th April 2006
Dear All,
In the absence of any other, I volunteer to represent Latin America
Caribbean.
Regards,
John
John L. Forman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tecso Informática Ltda www.tecso.com.br
Rua da Gloria 190/1002 Fone: (21) 2224-4643
Rio de Janeiro -
11 matches
Mail list logo
