Thank you Ed for clearing stating the HL7 position, which has always been clear, in my opinion. It is understandable, but, as you suggest, it would be desirable that the standards once they are complete be free. I'm not clear on what the licensing issues are in terms of redistribution of those standards, however. I also agree that HL7 isn't alone in charging a fee and is probably on the lower end of cost for those who do charge.
There are other models, of course, for handling standards within a non-profit organization, and it might be useful for HL7 to explore those. I don't want to suggest that people not support HL7 and its important work because of the fee. Thanks, Dave At 12:23 PM 8/27/2003 -0400, William E Hammond wrote: >Forgive me for a late comment, but I would like to clear the record at >little concerning hL7. HL7 is an accredited ANSI body, and follows ANSI >rules. Itis an organization that is not funded by any outside group. As >such, the organization deopends on membership for dues to support the >organization. I agree that totally free standards would be the best, and I >have argued that position within the HL7 Board. The best I have been able >to do is to get the draft available free. At the same time, release of a >new standard is always accompanied by an increase in membership. Also, I >must point out, that I think it is reasdonable for anyone who will gain >advantage from the standard to contribute. The proce for the standard is >just slightly greater than membership dues. Also, I point out that ISo and >ANSI sells standards - actually for more than HL7. > >I hope you all will continue to support HL7 and its work. I always find it >interesting when people talk about HL7 as if it was a them and us. I hope >it is just us, and we struggle to support the tremendous cost of producing >the standard. I think the US may be the only country whose government does >not support the creation of standards - but at the same time, I don't think >that is all wrong. > >We need the support of all the poeple who understand the value of standards >to work together and get the appropriate standards out there while the >stars are aligned. All of you are making important contributions. > >Ed H > > > > >David Forslund <dwf at lanl.gov>@openehr.org on 08/20/2003 09:37:41 AM > >Please respond to David Forslund <dwf at lanl.gov> > >Sent by: owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org > > >To: HOPTIMIS at aol.com, bish at hathway.com, openehr-technical at >openehr.org >cc: > >Subject: Re: Open Source EHR at the Americal Academy of Family > Physicians ... > > >At 09:22 AM 8/20/2003 -0400, HOPTIMIS at aol.com wrote: >To give to HL7 the name of an "exclusive club" is very strange; could you >give some explanations? >I don't know that it merits the name of an "exclusive club", but the "open" >standards that the >HL7 produces are only available to paying members, which makes them a >little less than open, >in my opinion. This is a practice followed by other SDO's, but not by all >open standards bodies. > > >David W. Forslund dwf at lanl.gov >Computer and Computational Sciences >http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~dwf >Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 87545 >505-663-5218 FAX: 505-663-5225 - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
