Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Archived » OHF » Limit the scope?
Limit the scope? [message #6383] Wed, 12 October 2005 02:22 Go to next message
No real name is currently offline No real name
Messages: 17
Registered: July 2009
Junior Member
Does Eclipse formally define the terms "framework" and "platform" anywhere?
Is this project building a framework or a platform or both?

The initial scope of this project should be limited to the implementation of
a clearly specifed core framework in direct support of healthcare
workstation and embedded applications. This core framework should provide
the functionality and define the extension points available to application
developers and those supplying additional framework and platform extensions
down the road. Extensions that handle specific processing requirements (e.g.
HL7 messages, HL7 CDA, DICOM or Terminology) should be developed outside
this project.

Essential healthcare infrastructure services of the core framework should
include security/privacy, transport and semantic interoperability,
structured document/message processing, workstation-centric process support
and domain resource management--but only in the "framework" sense. Any
specific realizations should be basic or exemplary in nature. Basic tool
support for the framework should remain in scope.

If this core framework is well-defined and well-implemented, it will provide
a sound base for further evolution. Other healthcare industry stakeholders
can immediately build upon, extend and contribute to it with confidence.
Re: Limit the scope - definitions [message #6402 is a reply to message #6383] Wed, 12 October 2005 04:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: grahame.jivamedical.com

Don Jorgenson wrote:
> Does Eclipse formally define the terms "framework" and "platform" anywhere?
> Is this project building a framework or a platform or both?

Hi Don

Let's start by addressing the issue of definitins.

I cannot find any definitions. Semantically, you stand on
a platform and work within a framework. But I don't think that get's
us very far.

Empirically, from looking across the Eclipse site, the terms seem
somewhat interchangeable, and seem to mean whatever the project
wants them to mean.

I will respond do the substance of your comment in a different message.
For now, I'll just say that I don't think the definitions are going
to be useful to us going forward in deciding what the scope of "the
framework" is going to be

Grahame
Re: Limit the scope - definitions [message #6463 is a reply to message #6402] Thu, 13 October 2005 05:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: brian.bedarra.com

I believe Graham is right, that the terms are used interchangeably and in
point of fact not all Eclipse "frameworks" are frameworks in the literal
computer science sense

Best to focus on what we actually plan/need to do.

"Grahame Grieve" <grahame@jivamedical.com> wrote in message
news:dii2gr$dn5$1@news.eclipse.org...
> Don Jorgenson wrote:
> > Does Eclipse formally define the terms "framework" and "platform"
anywhere?
> > Is this project building a framework or a platform or both?
>
> Hi Don
>
> Let's start by addressing the issue of definitins.
>
> I cannot find any definitions. Semantically, you stand on
> a platform and work within a framework. But I don't think that get's
> us very far.
>
> Empirically, from looking across the Eclipse site, the terms seem
> somewhat interchangeable, and seem to mean whatever the project
> wants them to mean.
>
> I will respond do the substance of your comment in a different message.
> For now, I'll just say that I don't think the definitions are going
> to be useful to us going forward in deciding what the scope of "the
> framework" is going to be
>
> Grahame
Re: Limit the scope? [message #6482 is a reply to message #6383] Thu, 13 October 2005 11:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: ken.rubin.eds.com

Don:

I hear what you are saying, and agree that establishing a solid foundation
(whatever term we use for it) is crucial to our success. Where I believe
we differ in viewpoint is on the scope issue.

There are many good infrastructure projects that ultimately never get
uptake or traction because people cannot "make the leap" to understand the
value they bring. It is very difficult to sell infrastructure, and I base
that experience on a core funded project that took over 5 years to get any
reasonable traction (and only did so when it was reframed as a business
value).

The plugin/extension points that you assert would be out of scope are
precisely those value propositions that can excite the industry. I think
we'd be remiss in working on them.

That said, so long as we keep them clearly extensions, the opportunities
are still there to add value and create vendor opportunity.

My two cents.

- Ken
Re: Limit the scope? [message #6608 is a reply to message #6482] Fri, 14 October 2005 01:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
No real name is currently offline No real name
Messages: 17
Registered: July 2009
Junior Member
Ken,

I think we may be seeing the flip-side of the problems you faced in gaining
traction-in this case, the perception that the proposed EOHF project intends
to move too far away from what is clearly infrastructure (or tools) in a
software sense. I've come to believe that, while the Eclipse community is
the ideal place to develop the framework-level extensions that the
healthcare vertical requires, it is not structured to efficiently implement
healthcare domain infrastructure that is higher up the stack (e.g. semantic
interoperability) and which requires close interaction with healthcare
domain experts across many disciplines (IT, standards development,
clinicians, government, vendors, etc.). Of course, no existing organization
is. We need to find a way to bridge the Eclipse community that is "all
about code" and the implementation-minded healthcare organizations such as
IHE and the HL7/OMG Services Spec group that have healthcare domain
expertise.



There is much interest in open source implementations of what would be
considered healthcare infrastructure but that just don't fit into the EOHF
project. As an example, I'm attaching a flyer that I was asked to prepare
for IHE Connectathon Participants Workshop that had representatives from
more that 40 healthcare vendors. To these vendors, implementations of the
IHE profiles is largely infrastructure and an open source implementation
would be welcome.



I absolutely believe that plug-ins that implement key healthcare standards
in support of EHRs and interoperability should be developed immediately, I'm
just not so sure that an Eclipse project is the best place for the higher
infrastructure tiers. I would like to narrow the scope for the EOHF project
(which will still require a major effort) and get it moving while we sort
through the best way to get the rest done. Maybe it will be in the EOHF
project, maybe not.



Don


Re: Limit the scope? [message #7966 is a reply to message #6383] Mon, 17 October 2005 13:28 Go to previous message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: grahame.jivamedical.com

Hi Don

> Does Eclipse formally define the terms "framework" and "platform" anywhere?
> Is this project building a framework or a platform or both?

I don't know. I guess we're going to find out

> The initial scope of this project should be limited to the implementation of
> a clearly specifed core framework in direct support of healthcare
> workstation and embedded applications.

After some thought, I can't agree. The initial scope of the project should
be driven be what people want to contribute. Limiting the scope of the
project seems like a bad idea to me. I also wonder quite how we will know
how to scope the core framework without having real functionality provided,
and why it would actually be useful or why anyone would use it

As an example of what I mean:

> This core framework should provide
> the functionality and define the extension points available to application
> developers and those supplying additional framework and platform extensions
> down the road. Extensions that handle specific processing requirements (e.g.
> HL7 messages, HL7 CDA, DICOM or Terminology) should be developed outside
> this project.

how do we know what common functions these widely varying pieces of work
share? How do we know how to reduce this to what's common?

I think that we should regard the core framework as an inevitable and
desirable outcome of our work, but not the actual work itself.

It also bothers me, that there is a huge variation in the way functionality
is spread between client and server - who would we deal with this?

> Essential healthcare infrastructure services of the core framework should
> include security/privacy, transport and semantic interoperability,
> structured document/message processing, workstation-centric process support
> and domain resource management--but only in the "framework" sense. Any
> specific realizations should be basic or exemplary in nature. Basic tool
> support for the framework should remain in scope.

but what tools could there be in the absense of actualy implementations of
problem solving code?

Grahame
Re: Limit the scope - definitions [message #563987 is a reply to message #6383] Wed, 12 October 2005 04:12 Go to previous message
Grahame Grieve is currently offline Grahame Grieve
Messages: 76
Registered: July 2009
Member
Don Jorgenson wrote:
> Does Eclipse formally define the terms "framework" and "platform" anywhere?
> Is this project building a framework or a platform or both?

Hi Don

Let's start by addressing the issue of definitins.

I cannot find any definitions. Semantically, you stand on
a platform and work within a framework. But I don't think that get's
us very far.

Empirically, from looking across the Eclipse site, the terms seem
somewhat interchangeable, and seem to mean whatever the project
wants them to mean.

I will respond do the substance of your comment in a different message.
For now, I'll just say that I don't think the definitions are going
to be useful to us going forward in deciding what the scope of "the
framework" is going to be

Grahame
Re: Limit the scope - definitions [message #564091 is a reply to message #6402] Thu, 13 October 2005 05:10 Go to previous message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: brian.bedarra.com

I believe Graham is right, that the terms are used interchangeably and in
point of fact not all Eclipse "frameworks" are frameworks in the literal
computer science sense

Best to focus on what we actually plan/need to do.

"Grahame Grieve" <grahame@jivamedical.com> wrote in message
news:dii2gr$dn5$1@news.eclipse.org...
> Don Jorgenson wrote:
> > Does Eclipse formally define the terms "framework" and "platform"
anywhere?
> > Is this project building a framework or a platform or both?
>
> Hi Don
>
> Let's start by addressing the issue of definitins.
>
> I cannot find any definitions. Semantically, you stand on
> a platform and work within a framework. But I don't think that get's
> us very far.
>
> Empirically, from looking across the Eclipse site, the terms seem
> somewhat interchangeable, and seem to mean whatever the project
> wants them to mean.
>
> I will respond do the substance of your comment in a different message.
> For now, I'll just say that I don't think the definitions are going
> to be useful to us going forward in deciding what the scope of "the
> framework" is going to be
>
> Grahame
Re: Limit the scope? [message #564111 is a reply to message #6383] Thu, 13 October 2005 11:49 Go to previous message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: ken.rubin.eds.com

Don:

I hear what you are saying, and agree that establishing a solid foundation
(whatever term we use for it) is crucial to our success. Where I believe
we differ in viewpoint is on the scope issue.

There are many good infrastructure projects that ultimately never get
uptake or traction because people cannot "make the leap" to understand the
value they bring. It is very difficult to sell infrastructure, and I base
that experience on a core funded project that took over 5 years to get any
reasonable traction (and only did so when it was reframed as a business
value).

The plugin/extension points that you assert would be out of scope are
precisely those value propositions that can excite the industry. I think
we'd be remiss in working on them.

That said, so long as we keep them clearly extensions, the opportunities
are still there to add value and create vendor opportunity.

My two cents.

- Ken
Re: Limit the scope? [message #564249 is a reply to message #6482] Fri, 14 October 2005 01:54 Go to previous message
No real name is currently offline No real name
Messages: 17
Registered: July 2009
Junior Member
Ken,

I think we may be seeing the flip-side of the problems you faced in gaining
traction-in this case, the perception that the proposed EOHF project intends
to move too far away from what is clearly infrastructure (or tools) in a
software sense. I've come to believe that, while the Eclipse community is
the ideal place to develop the framework-level extensions that the
healthcare vertical requires, it is not structured to efficiently implement
healthcare domain infrastructure that is higher up the stack (e.g. semantic
interoperability) and which requires close interaction with healthcare
domain experts across many disciplines (IT, standards development,
clinicians, government, vendors, etc.). Of course, no existing organization
is. We need to find a way to bridge the Eclipse community that is "all
about code" and the implementation-minded healthcare organizations such as
IHE and the HL7/OMG Services Spec group that have healthcare domain
expertise.



There is much interest in open source implementations of what would be
considered healthcare infrastructure but that just don't fit into the EOHF
project. As an example, I'm attaching a flyer that I was asked to prepare
for IHE Connectathon Participants Workshop that had representatives from
more that 40 healthcare vendors. To these vendors, implementations of the
IHE profiles is largely infrastructure and an open source implementation
would be welcome.



I absolutely believe that plug-ins that implement key healthcare standards
in support of EHRs and interoperability should be developed immediately, I'm
just not so sure that an Eclipse project is the best place for the higher
infrastructure tiers. I would like to narrow the scope for the EOHF project
(which will still require a major effort) and get it moving while we sort
through the best way to get the rest done. Maybe it will be in the EOHF
project, maybe not.



Don


Re: Limit the scope? [message #564454 is a reply to message #6383] Mon, 17 October 2005 13:28 Go to previous message
Grahame Grieve is currently offline Grahame Grieve
Messages: 76
Registered: July 2009
Member
Hi Don

> Does Eclipse formally define the terms "framework" and "platform" anywhere?
> Is this project building a framework or a platform or both?

I don't know. I guess we're going to find out

> The initial scope of this project should be limited to the implementation of
> a clearly specifed core framework in direct support of healthcare
> workstation and embedded applications.

After some thought, I can't agree. The initial scope of the project should
be driven be what people want to contribute. Limiting the scope of the
project seems like a bad idea to me. I also wonder quite how we will know
how to scope the core framework without having real functionality provided,
and why it would actually be useful or why anyone would use it

As an example of what I mean:

> This core framework should provide
> the functionality and define the extension points available to application
> developers and those supplying additional framework and platform extensions
> down the road. Extensions that handle specific processing requirements (e.g.
> HL7 messages, HL7 CDA, DICOM or Terminology) should be developed outside
> this project.

how do we know what common functions these widely varying pieces of work
share? How do we know how to reduce this to what's common?

I think that we should regard the core framework as an inevitable and
desirable outcome of our work, but not the actual work itself.

It also bothers me, that there is a huge variation in the way functionality
is spread between client and server - who would we deal with this?

> Essential healthcare infrastructure services of the core framework should
> include security/privacy, transport and semantic interoperability,
> structured document/message processing, workstation-centric process support
> and domain resource management--but only in the "framework" sense. Any
> specific realizations should be basic or exemplary in nature. Basic tool
> support for the framework should remain in scope.

but what tools could there be in the absense of actualy implementations of
problem solving code?

Grahame
Previous Topic:H3ET Proposal : HL7 V3 Eclipse Tools
Next Topic:EOHF Project Proposal
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Sep 17 11:48:37 GMT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.17467 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software