ats in
>>> the open
source pile and whats out of it, we can more comfortably move
>>> forward. As I have made clear before I would hope that you would end up
>>> making all of
the medical software that you have available under the GPL and I
>>> applaud your releases thus far. You may feel that you are taking too much
>>> heat over
this and you are absolutley right, but with the Medsphere drama we
>>> need to be more and more careful about what commitments are made to the
>>> community from
corporations. I am very enthusiastic about both OpenEHR and Ocean
>>> Informatics.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> __ NOD32 1897 (20061201) Information __
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi Tim,
You are making enough useful points to make it useful to assemble them
in a coherent, carefully considered position.
Maybe you could work with the Jon Patrick team to assist and clarify
just what ALL the issues are.
A discussion with Dr David Rowed of Ocean Informatics who was also
wa
Thomas Beale wrote:
> Clearly there will be effort involved for anyone who decides to
> re-orient their product in the openEHR direction. But my friendly
> challenge is this: if you are so passionate about open source code, why
> are you not as passionate about sharable health data? Having an op
Fred Trotter wrote:
> What we, as the community need from Ocean Informatics is a very clear
> commitment about
>
>- What you are releasing open source
>- When you will be releasing it
>- What license it will be under
>- Where it can be downloaded
>- What you are not releasing o
On Dec 1, 2006, at 1:48 PM, Thomas Beale wrote:
> mspohr wrote:
>>
>> We do look forward to the results of your discussions with your
>> lawyers and we hope that Ocean Informatics will make a clear
>> statement
>> on their web site of the status of both the standards and the
>> software
>> so
Thomas Beale wrote:
> mspohr wrote:
>> We do look forward to the results of your discussions with your
>> lawyers and we hope that Ocean Informatics will make a clear statement
>> on their web site of the status of both the standards and the software
>> so that we can have appropriate information t
>
> There is probably nothing of great interest to wait for; they are just
> drafting proper licenses
Please do not do that.
http://lwn.net/Articles/124797/
> If people won't touch anything until the people who
> built it have given it all away for nothing,
No one here as suggested that you g
mspohr wrote:
>
> We do look forward to the results of your discussions with your
> lawyers and we hope that Ocean Informatics will make a clear statement
> on their web site of the status of both the standards and the software
> so that we can have appropriate information to use in deciding how to
Hi to all,
I am not in a position to go into discussion about Open Source any deeper but I
want to stress out the point that the work of openEHR should better be seen
mostly as developing Specifications which are Open; meaning not only you don't
have to pay or belong to a certain group but also
Thomas,
I think most of us would agree that open health data standards are
very important and I think we all share a great enthusiasm for
promoting and using open standards.
The issue with this prolonged discussion has been that many people are
not clear on the definition of open source software an
One of the main motivations for offering access to an online openEHR
repository with a published API is to allow developers / app vendors to
discover if they are really interested in openEHR. Getting an idea of
what it can do functionally I see as orthogonal to the issue of the
source code bei
Thanks for the information.
Nandalal
--- David Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PING is now called Indivo (http://indivohealth.org/)
> and the recent conference generated a lot of
> interests:
> http://www.pchri.org/2006/
>
> Best regards,
> David
>
> David H Chan, MD, CCFP, MSc, FCFP
> Associ
> For what it is worth, I would rather always
> give the source code away as part of any deal, and we will certainly
> work toward that goal. But a higher priority is to make sure the company
> survives obviously. So...watch this space.
>
> - thomas
>
Thomas,
Thank you this is exactly
Thomas,
Thanks a lot for the comments.
/Nevertheless, if you are forced to use anything from HL7v3, CDA is the
thing to use, and the thing most likely to be convertible into/out of
openEHR or CEN EN13606./
This is the exact way I was interpreting my current position, since I
have to use HL7 and
Tim Churches wrote:
>
>
> Thomas, to be fair, you did provide a direct URL into your SVN repository,
> and it is not unusual to allow anonymous access to such repositories, so both
> my and Fred's questions regarding passwords were not unreasonable.
>
> Also, it is not exactly clear what the loic
Seref Arikan wrote:
> Thomas,
> I consider the openehr repository as a black box, and I don't intend to
> mix CDA or anything HL7 into it. By approval, I meant that openEHR is
> fine with transferring data over HL7 CDA. At least that was the
> impression I got from your comments in your presenta
Fred Trotter wrote:
>
>
> Ok, I think we are talking past each other. Here is a page from Ocean
> Informatics.
> http://oceaninformatics.biz/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=36
>
> It lists the products which very clearly state that they are based on
> openEHR. Now assuming I
Thomas,
I consider the openehr repository as a black box, and I don't intend to
mix CDA or anything HL7 into it. By approval, I meant that openEHR is
fine with transferring data over HL7 CDA. At least that was the
impression I got from your comments in your presentation in Ankara some
time ago.
18 matches
Mail list logo
