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 in
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,
> > > co
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,
On Apr 23, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Thomas Beale wrote:
> I am advocating that a culture of re-use and interoperability be
> adopted
> in health FOSS.
Would it be worth coaxing health FOSS producers to aggregate their
interoperability approaches? Perhaps by getting them to link, from
some kind
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 and environments.
Interoperability certainly isn't the "only" issue. However, you will
find that it
is an integrating issue. That is it brings a number of important issues
together and
actually reduces cost. There is never a question of whether one needs
to interoperate, only when. Typically people want to
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 and environments. This is where the cost advant
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 y
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 sho
--- 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
> b
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, yo
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 may be committed to interoperability.
Thanks,
Dave
Nandalal Gunaratne wrote:
David Forslund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David,
If the OSHCA takes on the task of making the "glue"
* to get FOSS for Health groups to understand the true value of FOSS which is sharing/contributing and collaborating with ideas and code
*to demonstrate the value of interoperability
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?
I currently don't see any difference in most open source system
OSHCA meetings have always been open to anyone. While there has been
much progress without OSHCA and there are other open source "working
groups" imbedded in organizations like AMIA etc. there is a need for an
open international forum whose focus is solely open source in health and
provides
Is OSHCA membership intended to simply be an issue of who can vote on
decisions by the organization or does it entail other matters? Most
organizations allow for observers and external contributors, but those
can't vote on organizational decisions. For example, can anyone
participate/atte
16 matches
Mail list logo
