>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Stephen Chu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:04:43 +1030
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: [FOSS-PDI] OSHCA Conference - Preliminary Announcement]
>
> Hi, Molly:
>
> I do not have any fear about the concept of "openness" in standards or
> software. On the contrary, I highly welcome and promote the concept.
> My concern is "open" software does not equate interoperability.
> Standards are required to ensure interoperability of hardware or
> software, open or closed. While many standards are open - e.g. HL7,
> ISO, some classification systems such as ICD, not all standards are.
> I was trying to plead the case of not to exclude standards that are
> not currently "open" while we examine the case of interoperability. I
> would like to see discussions on what "non-open" standards in health
> are essential to facilitating interoperability and how we can
> encourage or lobby those standards to migrate toward the "open" plank.
>
> My 2cent worth.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> On 1/19/07, *Molly Cheah* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> Hi Stephen (from APAMI list),
> Let me try and allay your fears on the concept of "Openness" in
> standards. I don't know how many from the APAMI list is also on the
> Openhealth list and there had been discussion already on this subject
> matter there. What I will do is to cross post my responses to the
> Openhealth list and extract whatever relevant discussion that had been
> posted there to this list. If anyone finds these cross posting
> incomplete please don't hesitate to chip in.
>
> I think this is a genuine attempt for those in the FOSS community to
> engage our colleagues supporting "non-open" formats (I hope I'm using
> the politically correct terms) without wanting to restrict or constrain
> anyone's viewpoints. None of us want a philosophical discussion either.
> Let me also state here that the programmes for the OSHCA conference are
> being massaged by the community to ensure that the deliberations at the
> conference and the conference output will be of benefit to all. Here's
> what I had in mind for the conference objectives as in the OSHCA
> web-portal. Clearly the objectives address OSHCA Vision and Mission
> Statements.
>
> > 1. Share and review current FOSS applications in healthcare
> > 2. Share and review current technologies in healthcare software
> > 3. Conceptualise and define OSHCA's role in managing FOSS
> > collaborative services
> > 4. Explore the role of open standards in facilitating interoperable
> > health information communication
> > 5. Promote OSHCA and its activities particularly to IT and
> > healthcare communities in Asia-Pacific region
> > 6. Promote the advantages of using FOSS applications to managers of
> > healthcare facilities in public and private sectors in the
> > Asia-Pacific region.
> >
> The emphasis on Asia-Pacific region is because of funding from
> UNDP-APDIP and subsequently our proposals for funding under IDRC's PAN
> Asia eHealth Research Network.
>
> Here's some views on the matter from the Openhealth list.
>
> Quoting Thomas Beale from the OpenEHR project....
>
> >I think that if we are to spend any time at all on this question, it
> >should be couched in terms of "what business model makes sense for
> >standards development"? And we should show why open source thinking has
> >something to offer.
> >
> >To give you an idea of the kind of thinking that could be exposed, here
> >is my opinion:
> >I think they should be open and freely usable - in fact I think the only
> >sensible business model for standards development is to give them away
> >free and charge some money for compliance testing. What ISO and many
> >other bodies do is completely wrong, and hence fails most of the time
> >(there are far more ISO standards than are actually used, because people
> >cannot even examine them for fitness without paying for them. Hence a
> >vast amount of talking, time off and air miles are wasted on producing
> >documents that never see the light of day).
> >
> Thomas continues....
>
> >Just to continue on my "software ecosystem" comment a few posts back, I
> >think this conference would be an opportunity to show more than just
> >"why open source is good" in a general sense. We already have the proof
> >that this is true in some areas, with category-topping efforts like
> >Linux & Apache. We also already have some great medical open source
> >systems. What we don't have is a standard-based, interoperable ecosystem
> >of software that we can offer the industry as a whole. What I think we
> >want is to show that we can build a cathedral, but do it in the bazaar.
> >We need something that looks like objectweb.org
> <http://objectweb.org/>, but in health. Putting
> >openly developed standards together with openly developed software is
> >the key to the future in my view, and we should be developing the
> >necessary thinking now; the conference is an ideal opportunity to aim
> >for exposing such ideas.
> >
> I've dropped copying to the OSHCA Committee because everyone there are
> on the Openhealth List.
>
> Molly
>
