Dear William, You write:
> Interesting view Gerard, > .... > My point is: again: we are arguing the wrong case, namely that of > the 'best' standard. None is the best, both work depending on the > goal. > My reaction: We are having the wrong discussion. I'm NOT talking about the 'best' standard. My argument was/is that standards are much more peer-reviewed than many papers in journals. And in the case of OpenEHR implementable specifications have been produced and peer-reviewed, including working software that ism published. So what more proof can you get. That was my argument. The discussion of what is the best standard and standardisation process, is futile. We both know our own answers and will not change opinions. So be it. That is a discussion I'm not interested in. With regards, Gerard -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, MD Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252544896 M: +31 620347088 E: gfrer at luna.nl Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 On 23-jan-2007, at 22:52, Williamtfgoossen at cs.com wrote: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20070123/03602fb1/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical
