The recent agreement between the Health and Human Services and the College of American Pathologists about integrating SNOMED into UMLS, and making it available for free to everyone in USA, was a landmark. Is there a thought process within HL7 that is exploring such opportunities? If HHS agrees to support HL7 to allow it to make its standards available for free, it will hasten its adoption and development while it serves the goals of the federal government too. There is a need to bring into sync UMLS and HL7 at some level. To my mind Semantic Network and HL7 V3 RIM have to be reconciled. This will facilitate reuse in an object oriented way while retaining semantic validity. We can then have a true unified health information infrastructure.
Regards, Hemant -----Original Message----- From: David Forslund [mailto:d...@lanl.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 9:32 AM To: William E Hammond Cc: HOPTIMIS at aol.com; bish at hathway.com; openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: Re: Open Source EHR at the Americal Academy of Family Physicians ... 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 ----------------------------------------------------------- SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). Because this e-mail has been sent without encryption, individuals other than the intended recipient may be able to view the information, forward it to others or tamper with the information without the knowledge or consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to receive further e-mail from the sender. =========================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20030827/d51c6ced/attachment.html>
