Re: [rights-requirements] HIPAA, HL7 and general questions

[Deirdre Mulligan <dmulligan@law.berkeley.edu>]

This echoes a conversation I had with Hari this morning. It is my understanding
that outreach to some organizations identified on the list began, at the
earliest, in late June. Appreciating the complexity of XML to the uninitiated
and the fact that several organizations contacted do not typically participate
in technical standard setting, I would assume that submitting a requirements
document is a labor intensive effort. Once you've actively solicited input
from folks, my experience suggests that not dealing with the input in a
fair, respectful, comprehensive and timely manner engenders ill will and
distrust.  Not an ideal outcome. I think it would be a mistake to
stick to the Aug 28 deadline if this is the cost.

Bob Glushko wrote:

 

 
Whether we will be voted up or down by the broader membership will depend on the quality of the product and its actual manifest utility, not the quantity of the requirements gathered in its production; the two are not the same thing. More requirements are better than fewer, but we will never manage to personally meet all of the customers of this technology.
 

i strongly disagree.

 If people voted only because of the "quality of the product" rather than appearances George W wouldn't have been elected president. People vote on their perception of the "quality of the process" as well, and the number and diversity of the organizations that contributed requirements to our TC will be the indicator that we can publicize and that they can use.  We need to do a better job of engaging organizations that might later  argue that we ignored their concerns.  I am hardly proposing an infinite delay - in my last message I said about Liora Alschuler, the XML/HL7 expert, that

I recommend that we invite her to join our TC, at least for a few weeks, so that she lead this evaluation and insertion of the HL7/HIPAA requirements into our set.
 

"A few weeks" might go a long way toward making our proposals credible. We all want an OASIS specification that is PERCEIVED to be comprehensive and balanced in version 1.0, rather than one that gets criticized as a "rubber stamp" of XRML and that will face a long tail of incremental criticism and revisions before it is viewed as credible.

bob

--
Deirdre K. Mulligan
Acting Clinical Prof. and Director
Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy clinic
Boalt Hall
University of California
346 North Addition
Berkeley, CA 94720-7200

v 510.642.0499
f 510.643.4625
dmulligan@law.berkeley.edu
http://www.samuelsonclinic.org