| Update [message #2331] |
Tue, 31 May 2005 21:42  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: brian.bedarra.com
Based on initial feedback from various people in teh healthcare domain, a
group of us are revising the OHF proposal. We hope to have it available for
review and comment by the end of the week. Meanwhile any comments,
suggestions, etc are welcome.
|
|
|
| Re: Update [message #2361 is a reply to message #2331] |
Wed, 01 June 2005 22:26  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: grahameg.jivaehealth.com
Brian Barry wrote:
> Based on initial feedback from various people in teh healthcare domain, a
> group of us are revising the OHF proposal. We hope to have it available for
> review and comment by the end of the week. Meanwhile any comments,
> suggestions, etc are welcome.
>
>
Hi Brian
A revised document would be good.
My first initial question and the question many others have asked,
here or elsewhere, is what exactly the scope of what is proposed is.
The existing proposal is a little bit vague and contradictary about
this.
Grahame
|
|
|
| Re: Update [message #2421 is a reply to message #2361] |
Mon, 06 June 2005 15:21 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: brian.bedarra.com
Well, a personal opinion -- I think the proposal should focus on tools and
application farmeworks ("frameworks" used loosely to mean a set of
components plus integration/glue mechanism, rather than a more formal
definition). Stating the negative, I don't think OHF should be in the
business of building server (or even client) runtimes, or a model EHR system
(although a set of executable use cases would be nice), or anythng like
that. I think those are activities more properly left for vendors and
integrators who are *users* of OHF, and who are in fact using it to build
healthcare applications. Parenthetically, it's probably essential that we
have OHF users actually trying to build things in parallel with the
development of OHF itself. But one thing at a time, let's get the proposal
constructed first.
Although I don't speak for the Eclipse Foundation, I think this scope also
has the virtue that it is consistemt with the scopes of other Technology
projects. Eclipse has been reluctant to intrude very far into the server
runtime area -- but I'm getting into an area that's off topic for this
newsgroup<grin>.
"Grahame Grieve" <grahameg@jivaehealth.com> wrote in message
news:d7lcqq$mcv$1@news.eclipse.org...
> Brian Barry wrote:
> > Based on initial feedback from various people in teh healthcare domain,
a
> > group of us are revising the OHF proposal. We hope to have it available
for
> > review and comment by the end of the week. Meanwhile any comments,
> > suggestions, etc are welcome.
> >
> >
>
> Hi Brian
>
> A revised document would be good.
>
> My first initial question and the question many others have asked,
> here or elsewhere, is what exactly the scope of what is proposed is.
> The existing proposal is a little bit vague and contradictary about
> this.
>
> Grahame
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Update [message #4861 is a reply to message #2421] |
Wed, 21 September 2005 22:28 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: info.catmedia.us
> Although I don't speak for the Eclipse Foundation, I think this scope also
> has the virtue that it is consistemt with the scopes of other Technology
> projects. Eclipse has been reluctant to intrude very far into the server
> runtime area -- but I'm getting into an area that's off topic for this
> newsgroup<grin>.
>
I guess, the server side is only one of the platforms, OHF means to target
(telling from the
proposal so far)
Even though it has been a hard field so far from my own experience (most
companies
sold the PDAs only as expensive pocket memos ;-) a Mobile direction (beside
RCP and
J2EE could be interesting for OHF...
Of course each of those technologies would have to be targeted with the
right set of other
project and framework components (RCP, WTP, or MTJ, just to name a few)
Werner Keil
MedSurvey Foundation
medsurvey@hotmail.com
http://medsurvey.sf.net
(only German so far, sorry ;-)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Update [message #563133 is a reply to message #2361] |
Mon, 06 June 2005 15:21 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: brian.bedarra.com
Well, a personal opinion -- I think the proposal should focus on tools and
application farmeworks ("frameworks" used loosely to mean a set of
components plus integration/glue mechanism, rather than a more formal
definition). Stating the negative, I don't think OHF should be in the
business of building server (or even client) runtimes, or a model EHR system
(although a set of executable use cases would be nice), or anythng like
that. I think those are activities more properly left for vendors and
integrators who are *users* of OHF, and who are in fact using it to build
healthcare applications. Parenthetically, it's probably essential that we
have OHF users actually trying to build things in parallel with the
development of OHF itself. But one thing at a time, let's get the proposal
constructed first.
Although I don't speak for the Eclipse Foundation, I think this scope also
has the virtue that it is consistemt with the scopes of other Technology
projects. Eclipse has been reluctant to intrude very far into the server
runtime area -- but I'm getting into an area that's off topic for this
newsgroup<grin>.
"Grahame Grieve" <grahameg@jivaehealth.com> wrote in message
news:d7lcqq$mcv$1@news.eclipse.org...
> Brian Barry wrote:
> > Based on initial feedback from various people in teh healthcare domain,
a
> > group of us are revising the OHF proposal. We hope to have it available
for
> > review and comment by the end of the week. Meanwhile any comments,
> > suggestions, etc are welcome.
> >
> >
>
> Hi Brian
>
> A revised document would be good.
>
> My first initial question and the question many others have asked,
> here or elsewhere, is what exactly the scope of what is proposed is.
> The existing proposal is a little bit vague and contradictary about
> this.
>
> Grahame
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03397 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
