find that it
is an integrating issue. That is it brings a number of important issues
together and
actually reduces cost. There is never a question of whether one needs
to interoperate, only when. Typically people want to defer this issue,
but in doing so they only increase the long term cost and reduce
the benefit to the patient. We wrote a paper on this in 2000, which I
referred
to in an earlier email, but I've not heard a critique of that paper.
Planning for interoperability (not necessarily fully implementing it) I
submit
reduces even short term costs. One reason is that it leads to more
reusable software and allows new projects to be started at a lower cost
by using earlier developed capabilities.
Dave
Tim Churches wrote:
> Thomas Beale wrote:
> > I have to agree with Dave here - I see it as problematic if OSHCA
> > doesn't see interoperability as a key issue. FOSS just gets you
> > applications and components. Interoperable FOSS gets you integrated,
> > componentised systems and environments. This is where the cost advantage
> > of FOSS will be shown in the future. It is worth considering the
> > ObjectWeb approach (http://www.objectweb.org).
> <http://www.objectweb.org%29.>
>
> No-one has suggested that interoperability is not an important issue for
> FOSS, although personally I don't regard it as the *only* issue. As with
> nearly everything, there are costs as well a benefits associated with
> building interoperability into software, and these have to be weighed
> and judgements made about what to do and when, given the inevitably
> finite resources and time available to any particular project.
>
> Tim C
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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.
