Fred, that's pretty much it. We can disagree whether we should solve the sem-interop problem now (us; harder, longer) or later (you; get more going faster), but that's not a real debate - in some places our view makes more sense, in others yours is the practical sensible approach. Our main aim is to enable /intelligent computing/ on health data; doing that means semantic interoperability has to be solved. Otherwise, there is no BI, CDS or medical research based on data.
My only worry about not taking account of semantic / meaning issues now is that it will cost more later, than if it were included now. I still think that there is synergy to be explored in the coming 12m-2y between the openEHR community and the open source health Apps community (if I can call it that). - thomas On 18/02/2012 20:55, fred trotter wrote: > > > > (please, no flame wars, below I am just trying to explain _my_ > point of view to Fred;-) > > > There is no need to worry about a flame war. I am certainly dubious, > but I take what you guys are doing and saying very seriously. > It seems like you are taking a totally different approach to semantic > interoperability than I generally favor. > > My view is that semantic interoperability is simply a problem we do > not have yet. It is the problem that we get after we have > interoperability of any kind. This is why I focus on things like the > Direct Project (http://directproject.org) which solve only the > connectivity issues. In my view once data is being exchanged on a > massive scale, the political tensions that the absence of "true > meaning" creates will quickly lead to the resolution of these types of > problems. > > The OpenEHR notion, on the other hand, is to create a core substrate > within the EHR design itself which facilitates interoperability > automatically. (is that right? I am trying to digest what you are > saying here). Trying to solve the same problem on the "front side" as > it were. > > Given that there is no way to tell which approach is right, there is > no reason why I should be biased against OpenEHR, which is taking an > approach that others generally are not. > > If that is the right core value proposition (and for God's sake tell > me now if I am getting this wrong) then I can re-write the OpenEHR > accordingly. > > Regards, > -FT > * > * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120218/33c7f8b1/attachment.html>
