[openhealth] Wikipedia article needs cleanup

The Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_informatics is actually quite good, but seems a bit top heavy with extenal links. I wonder if it might be possible to reorganize it a bit, splitting off some of the regional links and SDOs to seperate pages. Perhaps thetre should be a

Re: [openhealth] FOIAVistA SemiVivA 20060615 available

--- Nandalal Gunaratne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You said: > > As always, critiques, comments and questions are > > welcome. > > Are you serious? > > If you are, let me request that a document on how to > use this, once installed, with a real example, with > screenshots where necessary be p

Re: [openhealth] Re: VistA Office as 'open' EHR software

--- Nandalal Gunaratne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CPRS source is in the public domain but needs Delphi > to run. The version runs only in Windows. It can be > made to run in Linux using Wine, but just barely. > > A commercial organization has come forward to create > something based on Wine t

Re: [openhealth] VistA Office as 'open' EHR software

--- Nandalal Gunaratne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with Tim. VistA has a lot going for it, but there are some > good fully FOSS projects that can be developed further. They are > build on modern languages and well established FOSS - like LAMP. The > end users are more IT literate now th

Re: [openhealth] Beyond standards.

--- David Forslund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - HL7 is only a partial "solution" to interoperability as you indicate and 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 d

Re: [openhealth] Beyond standards.

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

[openhealth] The Givers and Takers of Open Source

This is from today's ACM TechNews, see for the full article. The Givers and Takers of Open Source InformationWeek (05/15/06)No. 1089, P. 44; Babcock, Charles The bulk of the work that goes into developing open-sourc

[openhealth] Archetypes for mathematicians?

Forgive the cross-post, but the topic of archetypes has come up Hardhats, and once again, I find the language used to describe the concept vague and (at times) mysterious. If you'll forgive me for the use of some mathematical jargon here, I'd like to revisit the concept of abstracting measurements

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

It seems to me that there are two threads of discussion here that are not at all merging. One issue is whether testing can and should be made cheaper. Maybe it can, but testing is the last line of defense in software quality, and is highly problematic, relying essentially on chance to hit upon the

Re: [openhealth] Re: CCHIT biased towards proprietary software?

Every software developer writes unit tests, but the unit test typically end up being files on their hard drives at some point. Making unit tests into artifacts is a relatively recent phenomenon, and even more so is the idea of writing test cases before you code (one of the tents of XP). If unit tes

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

--- Will Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Fred, I oppose the creation of a separate open source certification process. I think it compromises the opportunity for open source solutions to displace commercial solutions, and it distracts open source projects

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

Aren't we missing the larger issue? Proper certification of health information systems is going to be expensive, and that is probably unavoidable. Moeover, someone is going to have to bear the burden of that cost. I'm not sure that this question should really be tied to the certification model, tho

Re: [openhealth] CCHIT biased towards proprietary software??

[I hope you don't mind if I copy this to Hardhats. I think it is a topic of interest to both communities.] I have mixed feelings here. It seems completely reasonable to want to have an accreditation/certification process for health information systems (though the jurisdiction issue is certainly a

Re: Open Source Interoperability (was) Re: [openhealth] Re: OS at MedInfo 2007

This is a very interesting topic, and I'm starting to hear more and more questions about interoperability across products (or product suites) -- something which is, of course, far from trivial. This dovetails nicely with a discussion we've been having on Hardhats, because a critical factor in the a

[openhealth] Fwd: [Hardhats-members] Open source and accessibility

Forwardfing my own message (which begs the question of why I didn't include Openhealth on the original "To:" line!) === Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "It is foolish to answer a question that you do not understand." --G. Polya ("How to Solve It") [Non-text portions of this message have

[openhealth] Fwd: [Hardhats-members] Open source and accessibility (take two)

Sorry, I didn't realize I couldn't send HTML. The linked article is <http://software.newsforge.com/software/06/03/13/1628249.shtml?tid=150> --- Greg Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Greg Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Hardhats > Subjec

[openhealth] Re: [Hardhats-members] Ubuntu code of conduct

--- "Bhaskar, KS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ubuntu is one of the fastest growing Linux distributions. I was > pointed > to the Ubuntu code of conduct for developers yesterday, and I felt > that > it was well worth a read for anyone involved in software development: > http://www.ubuntu.com/comm

Re: [openhealth] Re: Open Source HIS taxonomy

The funny thing is that if the money had been spent to upgrade the levees in New Orleans, we'd probably be talking about how much of a waste it was (especially given that Katrina was ultimately downgraded to category 3). Of course, now we know it wouldn't have been a waste of money, but that's o

Re: [openhealth] Re: Open Source HIS taxonomy

I guess I have my soapbox issues, too. There are a lot of things done "at taxpayer expense". It is fashionable to speak disdainfully about what you do not happen to like, but you have everything from roads to clean water thanks to work done "at taxpayer expense". "Bhaskar, KS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [openhealth] Re: Open Source HIS taxonomy

It is true that CHCS I is a variant of an earlier version of VistA (then known as DHCP), but I believe CHCS II is rather different, intended as a successor to CHCS I. The relationship is not that one is a later version of the other, but that one was designed replace the other (though, in practic

Re: [openhealth] Senator Endorses VistA for EHR Standard

--- "Bhaskar, KS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One of the myths that is part of the FUD spread by vendors whose business models are not based on open source licenses is that software based on open source licenses is not commercial. Please do not inadvertently help spread this myth. Thank you for y

Re: [openhealth] Senator Endorses VistA for EHR Standard

--- Nandalal Gunaratne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Greg Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [NG] One problem in people not learning from VistA is that it is so difficult to install and run! [GW] The trouble is that VistA was developed over a period of approximately 30 years dur

Re: [openhealth] Senator Endorses VistA for EHR Standard

--- Philippe AMELINE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Joseph, By "simply implementing VistA as far and wide as possible", do you mean that you want to provide the patients with Vista ? --- Perhaps the best way to "implement VistA as far and wide as possible", in Joseph's words, is to make it as easy

Re: [openhealth] Senator Endorses VistA for EHR Standard

--- Joseph Dal Molin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nandalal, you have in one sentence described how VistA was first developed and evolved for the better part of its history, all be it the number of collaborators was much larger. [GW] I think that's a fair statement. So the real issue IMHO is not

Re: [openhealth] Senator Endorses VistA for EHR Standard

Fair enough. I suspect that the problem you describe here may be a bit of a red herring, though. The problem is not so much IT people (and I think that is a problematic term, at best) thinking they have the expertise to design health information systems, but a lack of cohesion in the field as a who

RE: [openhealth] The Question

Perfect. --- "Shaw, Nikki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - That we should throw out all the technology and invest in people Nikki Dr. N. T. Shaw E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.path.ubc.ca === Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "If you give some