standards world. It might be useful
for the community to agree on things that "everyone" will support, but
that alone doesn't make it a "standard".
Standards my be dictated by national entities or other bodies outside
the control of OSHCA.
Alvin B. Marcelo wrote:
> First thread:
>
> I propose we standardize on ICD-10 (as a minimum). It's an
> international standard anyway (albeit
> difficult to use). This of course does not preclude the others from
> using SNOMED if they can
> afford to do so.
>
> That being the case, OSHCA can also 'standardize' on the preferred
> mapping system between SNOMED
> to ICD-10. Any proposals?
UMLS has some such mappings, I believe. If SNOMED isn't free outside
the US and UK, it isn't clear how
one could agree on a mapping.
>
> Molly, how do 'sweeping statements' like these get to be approved
> officially by OSHCA?
>
> Second thread:
>
> An interesting insight I got at the last Regional Conference in Open
> Standards sponsored by NECTEC
> and IOSN in Bangkok (May 2-4) -- an Intel smployee (Danese)
> emphasized that open standards may
> only be considered open if they can be fully implemented by open
> source software.
>
> Any thoughts about that statement? Can we actually call a standard
> open if there are limitations
> to its implementation by FOSS?
The question is what types of limitations are we talking about. ASTM's
CCR, for example, costs money but can
easily be implemented in open source without any licensing issues.
There is an open source implementation of
HL7 V3 in Java but it requires the HL7 RIM to properly function and this
costs money to use (but not to deploy?).
People have argued that the OMG specs "might" be encumbered by a patent
and thus don't want to implement them
in open source. But many areas of software are in this category that
they "might" be encumbered by a patent, so I
argue this is a "red herring". We have existence proofs that OMG specs
can be implemented in open source.
It might be possible to implement CPT codes in open source, but not to
be able to deploy it for free. I don't think
open source "necessarily" implies "free". This is the old argument as
to what one means by "free". (as in beer vs ideas).
Dave
>
>
> alvin
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Nandalal Gunaratne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Alvin B. Marcelo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You are quite right. Interoperability depends in turn on the
> agreement on standards. Coding
> > systems included.
> >
> > Unfortunately the best nomenclature coding system is SNOMED-CT
> which is a proprietary product.
> > But I am sure the new versions of the ICD system will improve if
> they are widely used.
> >
> > Can our group agree on such standards?
> >
> > Nanda Gunaratne
> >
> > However, my question to the group is: can there actually be
> interoperability
> > without agreement on coding systems? And if we accept the fact that
> yes we need to share coding
> > systems, what coding systems should these be and why. I believe
> this is an area where
> > openhealth
> > can greatly contribute by laying down these 'open' standards upon
> which future interoperabilty
> > can
> > be made more possible.
> >
> > alvin
> >
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.
