Hi Carl. In the preceding email, Did you mean to say that there were no technical differences or now technical differences?
DJ
+1 (905) 515-0045
···
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry for the late notice, but I will be presenting on the Alerts proposal to the IHE ITI committee in about 45 minutes (at 12:30pm Chicago). If you wish to follow along/participate you can do so on webcis:
Just to point out that I think that this route would probably imply that “we don’t get alerts in OpenHIE 1.0.” Personally, I am OK with that if it is on the short-term horizon, which it would be with the IHE process.
BTW, I was thinking of the “non-standards-based” as equivalent to the @@H prototyped solution.
I would actually suggest that we should align our OpenHIE efforts with the @@H work item, as it progresses (which I assume it will, based on the interest following Carl’s presentation… which was very well done, btw). I don’t think we should be thinking we might have to do something non-standards-based now and hopefully upgrade later. Rather, I think alignment may provide us (and the IHE committee) with a way to prototype the solution as it is being spec’d so that we have both immediate adoption of the profile in real-world settings and insight into the all-important “engineering constraints” regarding the implementability of solutions based on the spec. Those are win-wins for all parties.
This communication is intended only for the party to whom it is addressed, and may contain information which is privileged or confidential. Any other delivery, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this telecommunication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail and destroy the message and any attachments.
Le présent courriel et les documents qui y sont joints sont confidentiels et protégés et s’adressent exclusivement au destinataire mentionné ci-dessus. L’expéditeur ne renonce pas aux droits et privilèges qui s’y rapportent ni à leur caractère confidentiel. Toute prise de connaissance, diffusion, utilisation ou reproduction de ce message ou des documents qui y sont joints, ainsi que des renseignements que chacun contient, par une personne autre que le destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le détruire immédiatement et m’en informer.
I presented the “Alerts Targeted at Humans (@@H)” proposal yesterday on the IHE call. There is supposedly a recording coming out of this (though I haven’t seen the link). I have attached the proposal for those interested.
It seems quite likely that we are not going to find an easy off-the-shelf solution to the alerts issue that will meet all of our demands and that we would be developing something custom. Though this could potentially meet some short term needs, it would not be based on a standard. At the same time, we could quite likely benefit from engaging a larger group to solicit requirements and think through potential solutions. IHE seemed to be an appropriate avenue for that. Indeed, the ITI committee has looked at a closely related “Findings Notification” profile before:
The TL;DR is that our discussions of requirements and proposed solutions are pretty closely aligned with the above.
Though we may not be able to do standards best alerting at the moment, if this proposal gets accepted by the IHE committee, then we will have a well-defined “upgrade” path to a standards compliant solution that will applicable in both the contexts we have traditionally be working in, as well in higher income countries.
If there is any interested in working on this let me know. The next action point is a discussion the Face-To-Face meeting of Oct 22-23:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry for the late notice, but I will be presenting on the Alerts proposal to the IHE ITI committee in about 45 minutes (at 12:30pm Chicago). If you wish to follow along/participate you can do so on webcis:
Just to point out that I think that this route would probably imply that “we don’t get alerts in OpenHIE 1.0.” Personally, I am OK with that if it is on the short-term horizon, which it would be with the IHE process.
BTW, I was thinking of the “non-standards-based” as equivalent to the @@H prototyped solution.
I would actually suggest that we should align our OpenHIE efforts with the @@H work item, as it progresses (which I assume it will, based on the interest following Carl’s presentation… which was very well done, btw). I don’t think we should be thinking we might have to do something non-standards-based now and hopefully upgrade later. Rather, I think alignment may provide us (and the IHE committee) with a way to prototype the solution as it is being spec’d so that we have both immediate adoption of the profile in real-world settings and insight into the all-important “engineering constraints” regarding the implementability of solutions based on the spec. Those are win-wins for all parties.
This communication is intended only for the party to whom it is addressed, and may contain information which is privileged or confidential. Any other delivery, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this telecommunication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail and destroy the message and any attachments.
Le présent courriel et les documents qui y sont joints sont confidentiels et protégés et s’adressent exclusivement au destinataire mentionné ci-dessus. L’expéditeur ne renonce pas aux droits et privilèges qui s’y rapportent ni à leur caractère confidentiel. Toute prise de connaissance, diffusion, utilisation ou reproduction de ce message ou des documents qui y sont joints, ainsi que des renseignements que chacun contient, par une personne autre que le destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le détruire immédiatement et m’en informer.
I presented the “Alerts Targeted at Humans (@@H)” proposal yesterday on the IHE call. There is supposedly a recording coming out of this (though I haven’t seen the link). I have attached the proposal for those interested.
It seems quite likely that we are not going to find an easy off-the-shelf solution to the alerts issue that will meet all of our demands and that we would be developing something custom. Though this could potentially meet some short term needs, it would not be based on a standard. At the same time, we could quite likely benefit from engaging a larger group to solicit requirements and think through potential solutions. IHE seemed to be an appropriate avenue for that. Indeed, the ITI committee has looked at a closely related “Findings Notification” profile before:
The TL;DR is that our discussions of requirements and proposed solutions are pretty closely aligned with the above.
Though we may not be able to do standards best alerting at the moment, if this proposal gets accepted by the IHE committee, then we will have a well-defined “upgrade” path to a standards compliant solution that will applicable in both the contexts we have traditionally be working in, as well in higher income countries.
If there is any interested in working on this let me know. The next action point is a discussion the Face-To-Face meeting of Oct 22-23:
Thanks for the clarification! Ok, so I suppose if fundamentally it is aligned then we would to support you all to be successful. Is there an interest still in a follow up Alerts call to discuss? Here is the link again for the Dootle poll: http://doodle.com/us6uqyk759erydcm
Hi Scott,
There are now fundamental technical differences between what we have been discussing as part of alerting in OpenHIE and this.
What is different here is that we would be getting value input from a larger community (from which there is high interest in this area) and we should end up with a standard rather than something proprietary to OpenHIE. Going thought this process also means we lose a bit of control over the outcome, but I think that means we will end up something that is more resilient.
Our InSTEDD team won’t be able to make this call. Thanks for sharing your presentation though. I think we could use some additional detail regarding your plans here. I would like to request that we meet one more time among the group previously discussing the alerts workflow. I think we need to determine a couple things:
If this IHE effort will be combined with the previous OHIE 1.0 workflow discussions
If so, what are the key differences in what you and Derek have drafted, compared to what the larger group had discussed and begun agreeing to.
The last doodle poll I sent out didn’t have much of a response. Let’s try again for the week of Nov 3rd. Please let me know what works for and we will try to get something on the calendar. Thanks!
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry for the late notice, but I will be presenting on the Alerts proposal to the IHE ITI committee in about 45 minutes (at 12:30pm Chicago). If you wish to follow along/participate you can do so on webcis:
Just to point out that I think that this route would probably imply that “we don’t get alerts in OpenHIE 1.0.” Personally, I am OK with that if it is on the short-term horizon, which it would be with the IHE process.
BTW, I was thinking of the “non-standards-based” as equivalent to the @@H prototyped solution.
I would actually suggest that we should align our OpenHIE efforts with the @@H work item, as it progresses (which I assume it will, based on the interest following Carl’s presentation… which was very well done, btw). I don’t think we should be thinking we might have to do something non-standards-based now and hopefully upgrade later. Rather, I think alignment may provide us (and the IHE committee) with a way to prototype the solution as it is being spec’d so that we have both immediate adoption of the profile in real-world settings and insight into the all-important “engineering constraints” regarding the implementability of solutions based on the spec. Those are win-wins for all parties.
This communication is intended only for the party to whom it is addressed, and may contain information which is privileged or confidential. Any other delivery, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this telecommunication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail and destroy the message and any attachments.
Le présent courriel et les documents qui y sont joints sont confidentiels et protégés et s’adressent exclusivement au destinataire mentionné ci-dessus. L’expéditeur ne renonce pas aux droits et privilèges qui s’y rapportent ni à leur caractère confidentiel. Toute prise de connaissance, diffusion, utilisation ou reproduction de ce message ou des documents qui y sont joints, ainsi que des renseignements que chacun contient, par une personne autre que le destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le détruire immédiatement et m’en informer.
I presented the “Alerts Targeted at Humans (@@H)” proposal yesterday on the IHE call. There is supposedly a recording coming out of this (though I haven’t seen the link). I have attached the proposal for those interested.
It seems quite likely that we are not going to find an easy off-the-shelf solution to the alerts issue that will meet all of our demands and that we would be developing something custom. Though this could potentially meet some short term needs, it would not be based on a standard. At the same time, we could quite likely benefit from engaging a larger group to solicit requirements and think through potential solutions. IHE seemed to be an appropriate avenue for that. Indeed, the ITI committee has looked at a closely related “Findings Notification” profile before:
The TL;DR is that our discussions of requirements and proposed solutions are pretty closely aligned with the above.
Though we may not be able to do standards best alerting at the moment, if this proposal gets accepted by the IHE committee, then we will have a well-defined “upgrade” path to a standards compliant solution that will applicable in both the contexts we have traditionally be working in, as well in higher income countries.
If there is any interested in working on this let me know. The next action point is a discussion the Face-To-Face meeting of Oct 22-23:
Just to clarify my perspective - the way we’ll end up with a standard that will help interoperability is to agree on something that works and then help that go through IHE.
Pushing something through IHE without the pressure-test of going through scenarios and agreement from implementers and experienced folks will just be a waste of everyone’s time now and down the line.
I hope it resonates with others in this group; I know it is the general sentiment in healthy standard creation processes.
Hi Scott,
There are now fundamental technical differences between what we have been discussing as part of alerting in OpenHIE and this.
What is different here is that we would be getting value input from a larger community (from which there is high interest in this area) and we should end up with a standard rather than something proprietary to OpenHIE. Going thought this process also means we lose a bit of control over the outcome, but I think that means we will end up something that is more resilient.
Our InSTEDD team won’t be able to make this call. Thanks for sharing your presentation though. I think we could use some additional detail regarding your plans here. I would like to request that we meet one more time among the group previously discussing the alerts workflow. I think we need to determine a couple things:
If this IHE effort will be combined with the previous OHIE 1.0 workflow discussions
If so, what are the key differences in what you and Derek have drafted, compared to what the larger group had discussed and begun agreeing to.
The last doodle poll I sent out didn’t have much of a response. Let’s try again for the week of Nov 3rd. Please let me know what works for and we will try to get something on the calendar. Thanks!
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry for the late notice, but I will be presenting on the Alerts proposal to the IHE ITI committee in about 45 minutes (at 12:30pm Chicago). If you wish to follow along/participate you can do so on webcis:
Just to point out that I think that this route would probably imply that “we don’t get alerts in OpenHIE 1.0.” Personally, I am OK with that if it is on the short-term horizon, which it would be with the IHE process.
BTW, I was thinking of the “non-standards-based” as equivalent to the @@H prototyped solution.
I would actually suggest that we should align our OpenHIE efforts with the @@H work item, as it progresses (which I assume it will, based on the interest following Carl’s presentation… which was very well done, btw). I don’t think we should be thinking we might have to do something non-standards-based now and hopefully upgrade later. Rather, I think alignment may provide us (and the IHE committee) with a way to prototype the solution as it is being spec’d so that we have both immediate adoption of the profile in real-world settings and insight into the all-important “engineering constraints” regarding the implementability of solutions based on the spec. Those are win-wins for all parties.
This communication is intended only for the party to whom it is addressed, and may contain information which is privileged or confidential. Any other delivery, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this telecommunication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail and destroy the message and any attachments.
Le présent courriel et les documents qui y sont joints sont confidentiels et protégés et s’adressent exclusivement au destinataire mentionné ci-dessus. L’expéditeur ne renonce pas aux droits et privilèges qui s’y rapportent ni à leur caractère confidentiel. Toute prise de connaissance, diffusion, utilisation ou reproduction de ce message ou des documents qui y sont joints, ainsi que des renseignements que chacun contient, par une personne autre que le destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le détruire immédiatement et m’en informer.
I presented the “Alerts Targeted at Humans (@@H)” proposal yesterday on the IHE call. There is supposedly a recording coming out of this (though I haven’t seen the link). I have attached the proposal for those interested.
It seems quite likely that we are not going to find an easy off-the-shelf solution to the alerts issue that will meet all of our demands and that we would be developing something custom. Though this could potentially meet some short term needs, it would not be based on a standard. At the same time, we could quite likely benefit from engaging a larger group to solicit requirements and think through potential solutions. IHE seemed to be an appropriate avenue for that. Indeed, the ITI committee has looked at a closely related “Findings Notification” profile before:
The TL;DR is that our discussions of requirements and proposed solutions are pretty closely aligned with the above.
Though we may not be able to do standards best alerting at the moment, if this proposal gets accepted by the IHE committee, then we will have a well-defined “upgrade” path to a standards compliant solution that will applicable in both the contexts we have traditionally be working in, as well in higher income countries.
If there is any interested in working on this let me know. The next action point is a discussion the Face-To-Face meeting of Oct 22-23:
We should aim for this as one of our basic operating principles.
-Paul
···
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Eduardo Jezierski edjez@instedd.org wrote:
Just to clarify my perspective - the way we’ll end up with a standard that will help interoperability is to agree on something that works and then help that go through IHE.
Pushing something through IHE without the pressure-test of going through scenarios and agreement from implementers and experienced folks will just be a waste of everyone’s time now and down the line.
I hope it resonates with others in this group; I know it is the general sentiment in healthy standard creation processes.
Thanks for the clarification! Ok, so I suppose if fundamentally it is aligned then we would to support you all to be successful. Is there an interest still in a follow up Alerts call to discuss? Here is the link again for the Dootle poll: http://doodle.com/us6uqyk759erydcm
Best,
Scott
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “OpenHIE Architecture” group.
Hi Scott,
There are now fundamental technical differences between what we have been discussing as part of alerting in OpenHIE and this.
What is different here is that we would be getting value input from a larger community (from which there is high interest in this area) and we should end up with a standard rather than something proprietary to OpenHIE. Going thought this process also means we lose a bit of control over the outcome, but I think that means we will end up something that is more resilient.
Our InSTEDD team won’t be able to make this call. Thanks for sharing your presentation though. I think we could use some additional detail regarding your plans here. I would like to request that we meet one more time among the group previously discussing the alerts workflow. I think we need to determine a couple things:
If this IHE effort will be combined with the previous OHIE 1.0 workflow discussions
If so, what are the key differences in what you and Derek have drafted, compared to what the larger group had discussed and begun agreeing to.
The last doodle poll I sent out didn’t have much of a response. Let’s try again for the week of Nov 3rd. Please let me know what works for and we will try to get something on the calendar. Thanks!
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Carl Leitner litlfred@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry for the late notice, but I will be presenting on the Alerts proposal to the IHE ITI committee in about 45 minutes (at 12:30pm Chicago). If you wish to follow along/participate you can do so on webcis:
Just to point out that I think that this route would probably imply that “we don’t get alerts in OpenHIE 1.0.” Personally, I am OK with that if it is on the short-term horizon, which it would be with the IHE process.
BTW, I was thinking of the “non-standards-based” as equivalent to the @@H prototyped solution.
I would actually suggest that we should align our OpenHIE efforts with the @@H work item, as it progresses (which I assume it will, based on the interest following Carl’s presentation… which was very well done, btw). I don’t think we should be thinking we might have to do something non-standards-based now and hopefully upgrade later. Rather, I think alignment may provide us (and the IHE committee) with a way to prototype the solution as it is being spec’d so that we have both immediate adoption of the profile in real-world settings and insight into the all-important “engineering constraints” regarding the implementability of solutions based on the spec. Those are win-wins for all parties.
This communication is intended only for the party to whom it is addressed, and may contain information which is privileged or confidential. Any other delivery, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this telecommunication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail and destroy the message and any attachments.
Le présent courriel et les documents qui y sont joints sont confidentiels et protégés et s’adressent exclusivement au destinataire mentionné ci-dessus. L’expéditeur ne renonce pas aux droits et privilèges qui s’y rapportent ni à leur caractère confidentiel. Toute prise de connaissance, diffusion, utilisation ou reproduction de ce message ou des documents qui y sont joints, ainsi que des renseignements que chacun contient, par une personne autre que le destinataire prévu est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le détruire immédiatement et m’en informer.
I presented the “Alerts Targeted at Humans (@@H)” proposal yesterday on the IHE call. There is supposedly a recording coming out of this (though I haven’t seen the link). I have attached the proposal for those interested.
It seems quite likely that we are not going to find an easy off-the-shelf solution to the alerts issue that will meet all of our demands and that we would be developing something custom. Though this could potentially meet some short term needs, it would not be based on a standard. At the same time, we could quite likely benefit from engaging a larger group to solicit requirements and think through potential solutions. IHE seemed to be an appropriate avenue for that. Indeed, the ITI committee has looked at a closely related “Findings Notification” profile before:
The TL;DR is that our discussions of requirements and proposed solutions are pretty closely aligned with the above.
Though we may not be able to do standards best alerting at the moment, if this proposal gets accepted by the IHE committee, then we will have a well-defined “upgrade” path to a standards compliant solution that will applicable in both the contexts we have traditionally be working in, as well in higher income countries.
If there is any interested in working on this let me know. The next action point is a discussion the Face-To-Face meeting of Oct 22-23:
