> Andrew Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My guess is that the "closed reference group" approach failed > because it > takes too much work to introduce change into the ontology/vocabulary. > It > is not just "paying to join" - but paying (monetary + non-monetary > cost) > every time you need to change anything or add anything into the > standard.
Yes, all the overheads for teh OMG and HL7 standards are too high. openEHR promises a means for low-overhead specialisation of Archetypes, while retaining an orderly development of a common Reference Object Model and core set of Archetypes. > We don't have to design the social-contract network as part of the > information system project. We just have to be able to support it. I couldn't agree less. The social-contract network is the main game. The technology (of Archetype Models) is secondary (but still important). The whole open source software movement has flourished due to teh establishment of a firm social contract network, not because of any particular tools or technology. We need the equivalent for knowledge (terminologies, ontologies, archetypes, reference models). Tim C
