Hi Fred (and all), While I do not in any way officially speak for openEHR.org, Ocean Informatics, or other openEHR developers; I must say that I think there is some confusion over the differences between the specification and the software and maybe even what openEHR is and is not.
openEHR is a completely open specification and data model for health care information. We ask for public participation via the various mailing lists and websites. Decisions are made by a core group based on public input and resulting through discussions within that group. Though I am not the 'deciding person' if you would like to commit to a long-term commitment to the project and you have ability/knowledge in the domain then please volunteer. From a software standpoint I think there is some confusion as well. REMEMBER! that the specification and the software are very different. Maybe; somewhat like the W3C specs and all the Internet software available (InternetExplorer or Firefox, etc.) An openEHR repository is much like a database engine. It has certain specifications and behaviors that are guaranteed to act and react in a specified way. Much like when you develop an application that talks to MySQL or Postgres. So what is being offered (by Thomas) is an opportunity to develop applications (templates and archetypes) that interact via web services with/and can be tested against an actual openEHR compliant backend. Is there anywhere you can build an application that can be tested against an Eclipsys or an IDX or an (name your vendor) backend? So if the "vendors" of an openEHR server decide to sell their back end for a price there still needs to be written the user interaction with that back end. That user interaction is dependent upon the implementation. This is whether it is an ER or a GP or a specialists system. I have no idea what their business model is going to be but I can say that this makes PERFECT sense to me. *** IMHO *** If I may back up a bit. There is a VAST confusion in the field as to what is a 'data model' and an 'implementation' in the database IT world. This has been promulgated via academic courses being influenced by commercial database companies over the past two - three decades. Please see websites like www.dbdebunk.com and books like "Databases, Types and the Relational Model" (search Amazon) in order to separate the issues. So, whether the software offered by Ocean Informatics is open or not is irrelevant. What they are offering is a backend that YOU can test YOUR open source software against. Of course if I am wrong here I am sure thaTHamos will correct me. ;-) Cheers, Tim Fred Trotter wrote: > > > I have been staying on the sidelines for this one but I think this is an > important point that does need clarifiication. > > You can answer "hybrid". You can say that your product is both an open > source and a proprieatary product. What is important it that your company be > very clear about what it is commiting to and what it is not. This has been > the problem with Medsphere, they want to take advantage of the open source > "buzz" but they have not been willing to make a commitment. Everyone has > seen me tear into them publically, well the only response to my criticisms > from Medsphere is this press release. > > http://www.medsphere.com/press/20061121 > <http://www.medsphere.com/press/20061121> > > This essentially says "We are a proprietary/FOSS hybrid company" the > problem is that this a slight of hand. When the Shreeves released the code > to sourceforge, Medsphere had made no public statements regarding what > exactly it was commiting to the community. Now they want to pretend that > this "hybrid" strategy is what the Shreeves SHOULD have respected. Medsphere > is changing its position and hoping the community will not notice! > > What we, as the community need from Ocean Informatics is a very clear > commitment about > > - What you are releasing open source > - When you will be releasing it > - What license it will be under > - Where it can be downloaded > - What you are not releasing open source > - What your reasoning is for releasing some things as FOSS and some > things not > - We need a public commitment. > > We need this to be on a page on your website written in very clear terms so > that when your company is sold, the new owners cannot pursue a "new > strategy" for your company without breaking clearly articulated promises to > the community. In short answering questions on this thread is not enough. > > Now, granted, you may already have a public statement like this that is web > accessible. If so, great! then all you need to do to repy to Mark is to post > a link. > > Regards, > Fred Trotter Timothy (Tim) Cook, MSc Health Informatics Consultant Jacksonville, FL Ph: 904-322-8582 http://home.comcast.net/~tw_cook/ EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SKYPE: timothy.cook Yahoo IM: tw_cook [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
