>Any opinion on YAWL ( http://www.yawl.fit.qut.edu.au/ )?
>
>Tim C
>
>
Hi guys,
I very much like the way Wayne Wilson explicated the Big problem :
"The very first thing to do is to build a believable (to doctors and
patients) scenario for needing to get information from one system to the
next, preferably in real time. IF you don't lead with that from a
demonstrably practical point of view and just assume a generic need
justifies all (interchange is good and will save the world, etc.), then
I suggest that this interoperability demo is no different than a vendor
plug fest designed to show managers why they should keep buying the same
stuff they have already bought."
And how funny it was to see that 6 posts after, all this vanished into a
workflow engines comparison (very interesting, by the way).
From my point of view, Wayne is very right to ask for a scenario "for
needing to get information from one system to the next". And I think
that such a scenario will be pretty much artificial if these systems are
HIS since the genuine main reason to communicate is continuity of care,
and that it is the very issue that hospitals don't address at all - and
even rarely understand.
This "generic need" that would justify a "need for communication"
between HIS is a myth that became a religion when a sufficient number of
people started to make a living by building standards for it. This is
not an issue for the citizen.
My 2 € ;-)
Philippe
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/
