On Mar 19, 2006, at 7:31 AM, Thomas Beale wrote: > I think (and I may be wrong) that OS as a theme in and of itself is > not > that interesting;
I'm glad I'm not the only one that has being thinking the same thing. > the point is: how does the OS approach in health > improve things? Positive consequences that spring to mind: > > * OS software it is potentially a better means of achieving > interoperability, since open source developments are more like > than closed ones to want to reuse rather than reinvent due to > more > limited resources (however, the evidence is that all modes of > software development are trapped largely in reinvention mode) This is almost certainly true. The IETF experience is an excellent case study here. By contrast, the incompatibility of various versions of SQL, web service models, and EDI standards serve as excellent examples of incompatibility. But why have developers of network devices and software chosen to embrace open standards? For a long time, it was the expectation that ITU/ISO standards would "win". > * OS software is accordingly more likely to be a better vector for > standards, since there is not the commercial motivation to > lock in > customers (but how do we know there isn't another kind of > motivation in the OS area to do the same thing - based e.g. > on pride?) I'm not so sure. Certainly, locking in customers is one factor, but equally significant is the lack of incentive for supporting interoperability between systems. They are not quite the same thing. > * OS software is more likely to be componentised, and delivered in > components, due to more limited resources and the inability to > financially sustain gigantic new build efforts. I agree. There is an incentive to build products that can be integrated into multiple environments, which is almost the opposite of the commercial (sorry, Bhaskar) world. > * It should be cheaper to own and run I'm not convinced of this one. I've heard the claim made many time, but it's far from obvious and there is little hard evidence. However, I do not believe there is any reason to expect it to be more expensive. > * It might even be more innovative, due to the need to find smart > solutions that work on cheap technology. I have no evidence > at all > for this, but it could well be true for the sectors of the > market > that are not pursued by big companies (e.g. small systems for > developing countries). Perhaps. There are significant barriers to innovation in the open source community, too. At the national level(?) there are regulatory concerns. The experts in software development are generally not likely to be health care professionals, and innovation really requires a partnership between the two professions. It is difficult to make that happen, though I'm not sure this is a function of whether or not development follows an open source model. > * being a vector of systemic change - i..e not just serving > individual customers but offering alternatives for widespread > change across entire sectors of health. This is also related to > not locking in users. Why? I don't mean to suggest you are wrong, but this is far from obvious to me. > > All obvious? I don't think it is. I think these are all potentials, > and > I think that OS development efforts owe it to themselves and the > community they aspire to serve to be more interested in > interoperability, (good) standards, and thinking in terms of > attractive > long-term options for users. I think we all run the risk of being just > as inward-looking and non-customer focussed as any commercial > development effort. The record of commercial products for > interoperability and lock-in has been mostly poor, so the > opportunity is > there, but in my mind, it is definitely not a given that OS efforts > will > do any better at exploiting it than commercial ones. > > These are the kinds of themes I would find more interesting in a > conference or other forum; not endless debates about free/libre, > licenses or other details. In other words the interest in OS must be > about better outcomes. > > - thomas beale > > > Tim.Churches wrote: > > Forwarded message from Peter Murray. > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: OS at MedInfo 2007 > > Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 09:54:15 +0000 > > From: Peter Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Tim.Churches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Hi, Tim - > > > > good question on OS activities at medinfo2007. (Could you copy the > > substance of this reply to the openhealth list, as I am not on it - > > thought I was going to be added after the AMIA OSWG meeting in > November, > > but does not seem to have happened yet - I will copy this to AMIA > OSWG > > list). > > > > I think we should aim for something substantial at medinfo2007 in > the > > free/libre open source area - we can at least get an IMIA OSWG > activity > > of some kind, which we can open to any medinfo2007 attendees, but it > > might be useful to see if we can get enough momentum and interest to > > maybe have a full day or so 'in conjunction with medinfo2007' or > similar > > phrasing for as many groups and individuals as are interested. > > > > I have to confess that the IMIA OSWG has not been as active in > > organising events and things as I had hoped we might be - for > various > > reasons, but when I did try and pull together a 'critical mass' of > > things for MIE2005, I did not get much response from people. > > > > I will be seeing Joan Edgcumbe from HISA here at our UK health > > informatics event over the next few days - if I get the chance, I > will > > sound out with her possibilities and processes. > > > > So - I am all for trying to get something together - we need, at a > > minimun, to encourage FLOSS submissions (papers, panels, tutorials, > > workshops, etc) as part of the normal processes of papers etc for a > > scientific event; that way, we may be able to get a clearly > identifiable > > track/stream. We should be able to get some. I am keen to try and do > > more than this as well. > > > > Let's see what interest we can generate by getting a message out > to the > > various OS/FLOSS group lists and then see where we can take > things - we > > will probably need a 'loose coalition' of people to push things > among > > the various groups. > > > > Cheers, Peter Murray > > Chair, IMIA OSWG > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ______________________________________________________________________ > _____________ > CTO Ocean Informatics (http://www.OceanInformatics.biz) > Research Fellow, University College London (http:// > www.chime.ucl.ac.uk) > Chair Architectural Review Board, openEHR (http://www.openEHR.org) > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > Software distribution Salon software Medical software > Software association Software jewelry Software deployment > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > Visit your group "openhealth" on the web. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > === Gregory Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine: it is stranger than we can imagine." --Sir Arthur Eddington [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
