I shared with you my definitions and my argument. This provided my context.
In principle: definitions are universal in nature and generally applicable in many contexts. Gerard > On Sep 3, 2015, at 3:33 PM, pazospa...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Definitions are context dependant, but that's not the point... you ignored > the true argument about availavility and constraints/freedom to use. > > Sent from my LG Mobile > ------ Original message------ > From: Gerard Freriks (privé) > Date: Thu, Sep 3, 2015 04:07 > To: For openEHR technical discussions; > Subject:Re: Advantage of ISO > I think that definitions are generally valid. > > > >> On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:38 AM, pablo pazos <pazospa...@hotmail.com >> <mailto:pazospa...@hotmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I think that definition doesn't apply to a standard / spec. IMO when we talk >> about standards, we focus on the ability to use it and let others use it, >> and the constraints / freedoms in that area, not in who is the owner. >> >> -- >> Kind regards, >> Eng. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez >> http://cabolabs.com <http://cabolabs.com/es/home>
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
