Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the openhealth
group.
File : /oshca_inaugural-meeting_notice.sxw
Uploaded by : drcheah2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description : Updated the Notice of OSHCA Inaugural Mee
Hi John,
Welcome on board. With you volunteering, we've got representations for
all regions. I will amend the protem list to include your name. Juliana
will e-mail separately to get additional information on you for
submission to the ROS as a protem member.
Thank you for coming forward.
Mo
Dear All,
In the absence of any other, I volunteer to represent Latin America &
Caribbean.
Regards,
John
John L. Forman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tecso Informática Ltda www.tecso.com.br
Rua da Gloria 190/1002 Fone: (21) 2224-4
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the openhealth
group.
File : /oshca_inaugural-meeting_notice.sxw
Uploaded by : drcheah2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description : Notice of OSHCA Inaugural Meeting on 25th
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 07:35:47AM +1000, Tim Churches wrote:
> I can't think of a
> single health-related FOSS project that has written its own operating system,
> or its own database management system
TkFP scores on the latter
> or its own programming language and associated libraries
The in
Thomas Beale wrote:
> Tim Churches wrote:
> > Thomas Beale wrote:
> > > I have to agree with Dave here - I see it as problematic if OSHCA
> > > doesn't see interoperability as a key issue. FOSS just gets you
> > > applications and components. Interoperable FOSS gets you integrated,
> > > co
James,
Good ideaas far as VistA-Office is concerned we will be shortly be
working through the CCHIT/ONCHIT EHR criteria which includes
interoperabilityonce we have done that we will gladly
contribute/link to a common reference page.
Joseph
James Busser wrote:
>
> On Apr 23, 2006,
On Apr 23, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Thomas Beale wrote:
> I am advocating that a culture of re-use and interoperability be
> adopted
> in health FOSS.
Would it be worth coaxing health FOSS producers to aggregate their
interoperability approaches? Perhaps by getting them to link, from
some kind
I just wanted to thank everyone for the advice on electronic medical records
in response to my inquiry last week. I've bookmarked all the links and I'll
be reading about them and trying the demos in the next few days... then,
probably, more questions. Again, many thanks!
Andrew Schamess
[No
Tim.Churches wrote:
>
>
> Sure, no argument there - the abstractions are potentially useful.
> However, for a project like, say, CHITS (which is where this thread
> started), considerable extra work involving considerable expertise is
> required to convert the OMG HDTF specs from IDL form into S
FYI
Original Message
Subject: [FOSS-PDI] U.S. advised to promote open standards, source,
innovation
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:05:02 +0100
From: Sunil Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], FOSS - Policy and Development Implications
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tim Churches wrote:
> Thomas Beale wrote:
> > I have to agree with Dave here - I see it as problematic if OSHCA
> > doesn't see interoperability as a key issue. FOSS just gets you
> > applications and components. Interoperable FOSS gets you integrated,
> > componentised systems and environments.
Interoperability certainly isn't the "only" issue. However, you will
find that it
is an integrating issue. That is it brings a number of important issues
together and
actually reduces cost. There is never a question of whether one needs
to interoperate, only when. Typically people want to
<>I'm going to upload the documents for the Inaugural meeting Notice as
soon as the protem committee had a chance to look at it and give me
feedback. However, at this point, there is one vacancy for a protem
member representing Latin America & Caribbean. (By the way most of the
references an
On Apr 23, 2006, at 1:22 AM, Molly Cheah wrote:
> . There will be the democratic process of
> elections after OSHCA's registration. I hope you will become a
> member so
> that you can participate in defining OSHCA's future and not turn it
> into
> a beast. The constitution is a living d
Thomas Beale wrote:
> I have to agree with Dave here - I see it as problematic if OSHCA
> doesn't see interoperability as a key issue. FOSS just gets you
> applications and components. Interoperable FOSS gets you integrated,
> componentised systems and environments. This is where the cost advant
I do too. so let's all work to make it a key area of focus for OSHCA.
Joseph
Thomas Beale wrote:
>
> I have to agree with Dave here - I see it as problematic if OSHCA
> doesn't see interoperability as a key issue. FOSS just gets you
> applications and components. Interoperable FOSS gets y
I have to agree with Dave here - I see it as problematic if OSHCA
doesn't see interoperability as a key issue. FOSS just gets you
applications and components. Interoperable FOSS gets you integrated,
componentised systems and environments. This is where the cost advantage
of FOSS will be sho
--- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com, David Forslund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This would be worthwhile. Interoperability is far broader than open
> source, but FOSS could set the kind of example that is required.
> This may (must?) involve working with those not involved in open source
> b
Will Ross wrote:
>Molly,
>
>I'm sorry for failing to review the OSHCA 2.0 release document sooner
>in the quickly moving process that is underway. Let's just replace
>all of my suggestions with the single observation that the Protem
>Committee has assigned itself tremendous authority an
David Forslund wrote:
> I don't see that your answer has much to do with my question. It isn't
> about
> where we have been but where we are going and why. I don't doubt the
> need for an international forum but what will be the constraints on
> participation?
If you are a member of OSHCA, yo
21 matches
Mail list logo
