[news.eclipse.technology.ohf] Re: Update

["Brian Barry" <brian@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d7lcqq$mcv$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
>
>
>