On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Tim Churches wrote: ... > 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.
Tim, Could you kindly point me to a reference for the proposed OpenEHR "core set of archetypes"? I don't recall reading about them. Also, how is the "Reference Object Model" different from "object model"? Are there objects which cannot be referenced? :-) > > 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. It may very well be the main game. I just think it is a grave mistake to confuse that particular "social-contract" game with the other "games" that we must play. In other words, the creating-tools-for-making-OIO-forms "game" and the building-a-social-network-for-sharing-OIO-forms "game" are two different games. The rules for each game are not the same and the players in each game also need not be the same. > 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. And all along, I thought that the social-contract network grew out of specific tools and technology that solved real-world problems? :-) In the absence of useful tools, I doubt any social-contract network will be sustainable. It may be helpful to study Sourceforge projects to see how long people stick around in the absence of useful code being released. > We need the equivalent for knowledge (terminologies, ontologies, > archetypes, reference models). If you make something useful, they may come! Best regards, Andrew --- Andrew P. Ho, M.D. OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes www.TxOutcome.Org (Hosting OIO Library #1 and OSHCA Mirror #1)
