Tim Churches wrote:
> > It is a bootstrapping problem. Relatively few individuals or > organisations are willing to put time, effort and resources into openEHR > until they see that the whole thing works as promised, at least for a > few proof-of-concept examples. Currently, the lack of a publicly > available (eithe open source or commercial) openEHR storage/retrieval > engine (aka kernel) is a showstopper - it is the hurdle between openEHR > and a seeing-is-believing "tipping point". The thing that amazes and > worries me is that I had exactly this same (email) exchange with Tom > Beale in 2003. Now it is 2006 and still no generally available [snip] The parallels with gnumed are striking, Although OpenEHR is well-planned (one might say over-planned) it hasn't saved them from the same difficulty of getting "over the hump", that is, a basic working system that people can look at, play with, and generates interest which then snowballs into a community and further development. Fundamentally the problem is the ratio of development complexity to programmer resources. In the medical open-source world developer resources are very limited, so we need to set our inital sights to a system that can actually get built. Fortunately end-users are much more forgiving than informatics academics, as David pointed out at the beginning of this thread: it simply isn't that hard. Eye on the ball, people. Ian _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
