less than
most might have thought. Which is why there is the HSSP
effort underway which is picking up from the OMG HDTF effort
almost a decade ago. The OMG HDTF made enormous
progress toward interoperability but it is little recognized today.
I think we know how to develop standards for interoperability
and have for some time. People just haven't had the
interest/motivation/incentive to do so.
I agree that everyone running the same code is not the answer to
interoperability.
This is precisely the message of the OMG HDTF effort done 5-10 years ago.
It is also why the push by the House of Representatives to have the DoD
and the VA use a common set of software isn't the answer, either. It might
save money, but it doesn't do much for interoperability. What is curious
is that they failed to recognize that there was a big effort to have
interoperability
between the VA and DOD (GCPR project) around 2000, but people gave up
only part way through the effort due to political considerations.
Your response is an eloquent reason why FOSS by itself
does little for interoperability.
Dave
Greg Woodhouse wrote:
> But what level of interoperability do you really have in healthcare
> applications. Sure, there are standards like HL7, but they do not
> really help much when it comes to achieving interoperability of
> systems. That's not a criticism of HL7, rather an acknowledgment that
> its goals are different. It provides a framework from within which
> interoperability can be achieved (much as SOAP does for web services),
> but does very little when it comes to actually providing a mechanism
> for ensuring interoperability v3 does somewhat more in this regard by
> defining the RIM and CDA framework. But ultimately, the real issue is
> that how to develop standards for interoperability between healthcare
> systems remains an open problem -- we just don't know how to do it
> (yet).
>
> I'm less than enthusiastic about the idea that interoperability should
> be achieved by having everyone run the same (open source) applications
> beccause it just dodges the issue: If everyone is running the same
> code, well then yes, of cours, they'll be interoperable. But that is an
> empty sort of success. Similarly, it is fine to say that I am free to
> peruse the source code of an application and thus learn how it works
> and what I need to do to integrate with it, but why should it be
> necessary? Again the suggestion that I need to "use the source" (to
> borrow a chapter title from a book I read years ago, and one that still
> bothers me) is preposterous. Yes, that is one option that open source
> makes available to me, but it should be an option of last resort! If
> someone wants to learn to drive, should I had them a wrench and say:
> Well, take a look and see how the car works. It's an "open source" car,
> so you're in luck. If I sound a little passionate about this...well,
> maybe it's the result of spnding too many years reading through other
> people's code because that was my only option when it came to trying to
> figure out what they were doing, and what is going to take to enhance
> (or build interfaces with) their code.
>
> ===
> Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Metaphors be with you.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
