Even in the absence of readily available working implementations of openEHR back-ends and other tools, I think people will still be influenced by informal and formal evaluations and reports on pilot implementations. But these do have to be published (online is fine).
I second that. That is what the scientific approach is all about. Publish and let them be peer reviewed. Let other people try to repeat the reported approach and see if they come up with the same results in their own continent, country, or hospital.
Assurances in an email message from members of the core openEHR team that "it worked well when we tried it" don't cut the mustard with managers (like me) who are deciding if and when to invest resources in openEHR, or something else.
That is what in Medicine is sometimes ironically called the "my own experience says" syndrome.
Unfortunately, Medicine's own history shows that sometimes placebos were (and are) considered as very good and active substances solely based in the hearsay from influential people. That's why they are placebos...
So the rationale should be that even if we think that some approach is the best we have seen so far, we will always be wiser if we follow the scientific approach. And the scientific approach applied to software includes, besides the description of the concept (hypothesis), verifiable working code (material and methods?).
Without that approach and as time is a limited resource, I am afraid that nice ideas will stay as speculative and unverifiable, and as such to be taken with more than a little grain of salt.
J. Antas
------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ Care2002-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/care2002-developers
