Just a comment: I like OpenEHR, but it is erroneous to refer to it as an "open standard". The term "standard" is usually reserved for something certified as a standard by an organization or that is a de facto standard by its widespread use. Neither of these apply to OpenEHR at this time. It apparently has a published API but this doesn't make it a standard.
An example of what I'm saying is that the API for OpenEMed is an "open standard" developed by the OMG (and its member organizations). OpenEMed is an open source implementation of those open standards. So the two issues are orthogonal. As an aside, I would like to see OpenEHR use and open standard API (Perhaps something such as COAS or PIDS, or an equivalent such as the upcoming EIS and RLUS specifications). I think EHR applications should be interoperable without having to use the same underlying code. Given some time and effort I would like to show that OpenEMed can accommodate the OpenEHR specifications. Dave ivhalpc wrote: > > Open standards alone are an artificial separation of code and data > that is un-tenable. Source code without data and data without source > code are not very useful. To be circular: a .odt (Open Document Text) > file without OpenOffice.org is a .odt file without Openoffice.org. > Major thinkers going back to Alan Turing have noted that the > artificial separation of code and data is just that: artificial. It is > like space-time. Time without space and space without time are > meaningless. You can argue with me on this, but I don't think I can be > convinced otherwise. Everytime I hear someone advocating open > standards without or against open source I remember this. > > -- IV > > _
