On 25-10-14 13:58, Thomas Beale wrote: > On 24/10/2014 19:17, Bert Verhees wrote: >> OpenEHR is not a standard, it is a formal specification. >> >> http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards.htm >> ISO, What is a standard: >> >> "A standard is a document that provides requirements, specifications, >> guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure >> that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their >> purpose." > > This is such a fun topic I wrote a blog post > <http://wolandscat.net/2014/10/25/what-is-a-standard-legislation-or-utilisation/> > > on it :) > > - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org I replied following to it:
Thomas, you write: ?They still publish documents, not computable artefacts, standards have no maintenance team, no issue reporting capability and no update release strategy.? This not true, at least not at ECMA and ISO. 1) Example in the standard for Microsoft OOXML are XML Schema?s (XSD) included. So they deliver computable artefacts. 2) They do not only publish standards, but organize international teamsmeetings of people which create/edit the standards. A standard in a specific version is stable, it cannot change, it would be unusable if it was not stable. 3) Maintenance, ISO standards can get updated, there are even fasttracks , so not the complete standard has to be talked through. An update, of course, gets a distinguishable version/name/id. What you write about OpenEHR doing much better as a defacto standard is not fully correct. Example: I am missing some computable artefacts. For example, we have waited five years before the RM-XSD was published in a correct way, and still there are some inconveniences in it. There were errors in that XSD, I emailed about it years ago. Now it has been revised, but not fully, there are still errors I reported in 2009. It is also not optimal. For example by using xs:sequence instead of xs:choice, and so enforcing a useless sequence of properties. There are some more issues, I do not want to discuss them now. Also, the XSD for OET is still not published, and it is used in software and by developers. How long are we using templates by now? 10 years? OpenEHR seems to be in some parts a moving target. A quality-institute as ISO would not allow this. There are some quality-requirements used by ISO. The standard is not only created by the designers (stakeholders), but by worldwide teams and it becomes accepted by vote of the voting members of ISO. I would welcome if OpenEHR would become a standard, not only because many governments do not invest in non-standards, but also for the quality requirements standardization-bodies pose and for having worldwide non-stakeholding teams looking at it. I think this is important. Bert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141026/d43045e1/attachment.html>
