Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]

2006-03-24 Thread Thomas Beale
David Forslund wrote: http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624944 is the link to the article I intended to post. David Forslund wrote: I thought folks might like to see this article. Any comments? -Dave this brings back a big debate about among this group

Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]

2006-03-24 Thread Tim.Churches
Thomas Beale wrote: David Forslund wrote: http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624944 is the link to the article I intended to post. David Forslund wrote: I thought folks might like to see this article. Any comments? -Dave this brings back a

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations Standards.

2006-03-24 Thread Philippe AMELINE
Hi David, Hospital records are back office systems scattered in the landscape. A virtual patient record is just trying to build a front office system out of this data. Odyssée is aimed at providing a real patient owned system that is dedicated to continuity of care. What I mean is that this

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations Standards.

2006-03-24 Thread Will Ross
These workflows are intentionally not computable. They are simple visual aids to sketch the overall operational processes where a user interacts with software, without descending into the complexities of computable steps. The diagrams are deliberately chunked into single page views

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations Standards.

2006-03-24 Thread Will Ross
On Mar 23, 2006, at 10:31 PM, Joseph Dal Molin wrote: Will Ross wrote: Joseph, I disagree on your community challenge. I think the community aspect of open source is not only over rated, it is in fact a negative, a risk factor to be considered. I guess its a matter of perspectivein

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations Standards.

2006-03-24 Thread Thomas Beale
Philippe AMELINE wrote: To come back to the initial thread of information exchanges, I hope that you understand my position better: the concurrent engineering system must be fed (for very well selected information) by legacy systems, but also manage its own set of information. In the other

Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]

2006-03-24 Thread Thomas Beale
Tim.Churches wrote: Why Wikipedia doesn't have one is a mystery to me. Why it is as good as it is (however good you think it is) is also a mystery. It is wrong to think of wikipedia as an open source/open content project. In fact, it is about 1 million separate open source/open content

Community (was) Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations Standards.

2006-03-24 Thread Joseph Dal Molin
Yes agreedrelying community dynamics etc. alone is high risk...there also the need for low effort control through standards and certification etc. Tim's Wikipedia example is a good oneit also illustrates that part of the solution to managing complex communities is to have many smaller

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations Standards.

2006-03-24 Thread Nandalal Gunaratne
Joseph Dal Molin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The real challenge is building the communities, not the software. This is particularly true in healthcare. But the community must be as global as possible Nanda Joseph Will Ross wrote: Until we have compelling informatics solutions

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations Standards.

2006-03-24 Thread David Forslund
There is an intermediate value to the workflows if they can be used in software. One can model the behavior of the system without having to have the entire system under workflow management. This can help assess the accuracy of the workflow diagrams to be sure that side effects are what you

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations Standards.

2006-03-24 Thread David Forslund
I think there is an intermediate position here. In my experience these standards, far from perfect, are good enough to gain experience and see them work in practice. The resulting models and infrastructure are actually rather easy to change into new paradigms, I believe. I can't wait

Re: [openhealth] Mirth Project: FOSS HL7 interoperability.

2006-03-24 Thread Stefano Canepa
2006/3/23, Ignacio Valdes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The goal of the http://www.mirthproject.org/ Mirth Project is to develop an open source cross-platform HL7 interface engine that enables bi-directional sending of HL7 messages between systems and applications over multiple transports. By

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations Standards.

2006-03-24 Thread Thomas Beale
David Forslund wrote: I think there is an intermediate position here. In my experience these standards, far from perfect, are good enough to gain experience and see them work in practice. The resulting models and infrastructure are actually rather easy to change into new paradigms, I

[openhealth] Digest format option

2006-03-24 Thread Wayne Wilson
openhealth@yahoogroups.com wrote: There are 25 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: So, I might be the only one subscribed in digest format, for those of you who don't, I left the above information so that you can see that what I get is a single message with (in this case 25) all

[openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

2006-03-24 Thread Fred Trotter
The current CCHIT pricing module seems biased against any GPL based system. Joseph has already written about this, but I would like for us to consider group action in the issue. The first issue is pricing. It will cost a $25,000 to $35,000 one-time fee to perform the test. After certification, an

[openhealth] Re: Demonstrations Standards.

2006-03-24 Thread Wayne Wilson
This continues to be a good discussion. I highlighted some small snippets of previous replys because I think they get at two of the other significant factors involved in uptake of systems. Business models Clinical care models (My perspective is limited to the USA). Whatever else we might

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

2006-03-24 Thread syd
The current CCHIT pricing module seems biased against any GPL based system. Joseph has already written about this, but I would like for us to consider group action in the issue. The first issue is pricing. It will cost a $25,000 to $35,000 one-time fee to perform the test. After

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

2006-03-24 Thread Joseph Dal Molin
This is a US initiative... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The current CCHIT pricing module seems biased against any GPL based system. Joseph has already written about this, but I would like for us to consider group action in the issue. The first issue is pricing. It will cost

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

2006-03-24 Thread Greg Woodhouse
[I hope you don't mind if I copy this to Hardhats. I think it is a topic of interest to both communities.] I have mixed feelings here. It seems completely reasonable to want to have an accreditation/certification process for health information systems (though the jurisdiction issue is certainly a

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

2006-03-24 Thread Fred Trotter
You are right we should not receive a by we do need to make concrete suggestions as to how the same organization can accomplish open source evaluations... Here are the suggestions from emrupdate.com emrupdate 1. Markedly decrease your up-front fees and eliminate the percent royalties

Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]

2006-03-24 Thread Tim.Churches
Thomas Beale wrote: Tim.Churches wrote: Why Wikipedia doesn't have one is a mystery to me. Why it is as good as it is (however good you think it is) is also a mystery. It is wrong to think of wikipedia as an open source/open content project. In fact, it is about 1 million

Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]

2006-03-24 Thread Nandalal Gunaratne
Thomas Beale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linus may have an iron fist control (though I doubt it), but there are many FOSS projects that don't! They seem to be doing equally well. NandA David Forslund wrote: http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624944

Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]

2006-03-24 Thread Richard Schilling
The evolving work-social phenomena are sure interesting. Toyota, and agriculture research adopting the approach is pretty cool. I believe there are a LOT of companies incorporating open source work into RFPs and proposals to get a contract without even talking to the original developers - this

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations Standards.

2006-03-24 Thread Richard Schilling
Can anyone post the link again to the files section? Thanks! Richard Will Ross wrote: oops. now i posted the document in the openhealth files section. [wr] - - - - - - - - On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:01 PM, David Forslund wrote: As you probably noticed, images (and attachments) are

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

2006-03-24 Thread Richard Schilling
I'd prefer to assume that the CCHIT pricing model is simply biased toward software companies that can produce a viable product. And by that I mean a software product that stimulates revenue for a company at some point - which in our case is not through the sale of software licenses. Nothing

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

2006-03-24 Thread Rod Roark
On Friday 24 March 2006 04:48 pm, Richard Schilling wrote: ... I maintain open souce software is a path toward stimulated economies and innovation .. CCHIT doesn't owe anything to open source software and shouldn't be required to lower their fees. It's up to us to demonstrate that

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

2006-03-24 Thread Richard Schilling
Rod Roark wrote: This is equivalent to ignoring the practical issues that Fred raised. I disagree. The practical issues Fred raised are real concerns, but the software companies we're competing against throw a *lot* of money into validation and certification - especially HIPAA compliance (in

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

2006-03-24 Thread Rod Roark
On Friday 24 March 2006 05:27 pm, Richard Schilling wrote: Rod Roark wrote: ... Nobody is going to pay thousands of dollars for certification of free software -- not to mention that such software by its nature will be continually evolving and so quickly rendering any given certification

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

2006-03-24 Thread Tim.Churches
Fred Trotter wrote: The current CCHIT pricing module seems biased against any GPL based system. Fred, you don't think that the CCHIT pricing is biased against software released under other types of free, open source licenses? Joseph has already written about this, but I would like for us to

Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations Standards.

2006-03-24 Thread Maury Pepper
- Original Message - From: Richard Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: openhealth@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:23 PM Subject: Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations Standards. Can anyone post the link again to the files section? Thanks! Richard At the bottom of every

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

2006-03-24 Thread Richard Schilling
Tim.Churches wrote: I think that the key question is: what does certification involve? How is it done? Is the $25000 certification fee required in order to employ a team of High Priests who use magical incantations and crystal balls to determine whether a particular software product should

workflow diagram Re: [openhealth] Demonstrations Standards.

2006-03-24 Thread Richard Schilling
Nice work flow diagram. One of the more difficult things I've encountered in 10+ years of health care software development is documenting the work flow. The hallmark of a good clinic hospital seems to be the ability to adjust the work flow to meet the need. There's the work flow the system