tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18997019.post5652423030826336966..comments2023-10-29T11:27:16.433-04:00Comments on HL7 Watch: An Australian View on HL7 V3Barry Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04280256497568985237noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18997019.post-61016034311079949822011-07-15T14:17:54.400-04:002011-07-15T14:17:54.400-04:00And here I thought the debate between v2 and v3 is...And here I thought the debate between v2 and v3 is long dead and over. I am even surprised that has re-surfaced. <br /><br />I am really happy to see these posts, if not anything, an opportunity to revisit discussions I recall decade ago. <br /><br />For me, reading through these arguments, beyond the points around complexity, I am not 100% clear whether the frustration with v3 is with the RIM, or the whole approach, or with the v3 messages, or with other things that are being tagged along in the v3 world, such as RIMBAA, CDA & CCD whereby the RIM has become the core of it.Callumnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18997019.post-7171427210476412522011-03-27T06:22:10.858-04:002011-03-27T06:22:10.858-04:00Hi Barry
Lovely to see my comment go viral. And e...Hi Barry<br /><br />Lovely to see my comment go viral. And especially to get further comments from an anonymous "An asian healthcare specialist". You could at least notify me<br /><br />Now, some comments:<br /><br />> Grahame Grieve writes on behalf of HL7<br /><br />No. I wrote on behalf of myself. I'm not authorized to comment on behalf of HL7.<br /><br />> Grahame asserts that commentators -- whom he divides into critics and carpers <br /><br />no. Some are, not all. Do you have to misquote me that bad?<br /><br />> Why, then, are so many people reluctant to use their <br />> names when commenting critically on HL7? <br /><br />I guess some governments that have picked some standards don't like to see them criticized. But I really don't think you can lay the blame for that at HL7's door.<br /><br />> Such claims give rise in turn to multiple efforts to reinvent various <br />> well-functioning wheels in somewhat less-well-functioning proprietary versions inside the walls of HL7.<br /><br />you really think that those "claims" are responsible for these efforts? You'd be as naive as you accuse everyone else of being.<br /><br />> HL7 becomes ever more complicated, ever more difficult to teach, and ever more difficult to apply successfully. <br /><br />Yes. These are all true, and concerning. But complexity is complex. As are committee designed standards. Name a standard that hasn't got more complex over time...<br /><br />> That's pretty lame! When a patient's life is on the line > "some use for interoperability" is not good enough<br /><br />oh? Patient's lives are on the line? I'd never thought! <br /><br />> Imagine using "some interoperability" to loosely move data across hospitals with the possibility of data errors. <br /><br />To be serious, it's hard to know how to respond to this. There's no context, no ground rules. As for this...<br /><br />> V2.6 can actually do every thing that V3 does - only more elegantly, simply and transparently<br /><br />I can only assume that the "expert" hasn't implemented both CDA and v2. Perhaps not even read them. Of they have a very peculiar definition of "everything".<br /><br />> Have you seen the latest restrictions on use of the HL7 standards?<br /><br />Errr, I've not heard that anything changed. What, specifically, has changed? I'm personally against charging for the standards, but developing standards is a costly business that has to be funded somehow. (Do I need to repeat for slow readers that I do *not* speak for HL7?)<br /><br />> So in conclusion here is the true (no hidden agendas) <br /><br />No hidden agendas? from an anonymous contributer? I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond.<br /><br />GrahameGrahame Grievehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08635283945076545993noreply@blogger.com