Home » Archived » OHF » Open Business Framework
| Open Business Framework [message #11481] |
Mon, 28 November 2005 12:25  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: weberjn.hotmail.com
If you look at the Functional Architecture graphic on
http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/eclipse-ohf/main.php, you see a lot of
squares that are needed by any business application (those in the first
three columns).
I don't see a lot of difference between entering patient data for a
hospital or entering customer data for an insurance company.
So, what about extracting the general business functionality from OHF into
an Open Business Framework?
OHF extends OBF
This would vastly enhance the user base of this framework.
Juergen
|
|
|
| Re: Open Business Framework [message #11518 is a reply to message #11481] |
Mon, 28 November 2005 17:31  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: eishays.us.ibm.com
> I don't see a lot of difference between entering patient data for a
> hospital or entering customer data for an insurance company.
Some differences might be:
* Protocols (ASC X12 for insurance, HL7/PIX profile for healthcare)
* Identification mechanizes and mapping (CAD and CDO ID a patient might
have)
* Data restrictions enforced by HIPPA causing the patient info to look
different in both systems.
There are few things that both scenarios have in common are some basic
demographic data, but I wonder if this by its own is a good enough
reason for such an architectural decision. I guess a common demographic
data structure is more reasonable.
By the way, I am not saying that this was not a good idea, just saying
that we need a better case. And another thing, don’t use “Open Business
Framework” without checking it first with SAP ;-)
Eishay
|
|
|
| Re: Common Business Framework [message #11554 is a reply to message #11518] |
Tue, 29 November 2005 12:31 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: weberjn.hotmail.com
Eishay Smith wrote:
> There are few things that both scenarios have in common are some basic
> demographic data, but I wonder if this by its own is a good enough
> reason for such an architectural decision. I guess a common demographic
> data structure is more reasonable.
Yes, there certainly is health specific functionality. But it should be in
a layer above the Common Business Framework, whereas the business
framework should know nothing about X-ray images. And other areas like
banking, insurance, retail or government could base their applications on
the Common Business Framework (or even on their own frameworks based on
Common Business Framework).
In the Common Business Framework I see functionality like
o Security
o Communication
o Data mapping
o Data presentation
o Data persistence
o Reports
o Document archiving
o Workflow
Everything of these you need in an health administration application, but
also in every other business application.
> And another thing, donât use âOpen Business
> Frameworkâ without checking it first with SAP ;-)
Yes, indeed, Common Business Framework might make it a lot easier to start
a competition to SAP.
Juergen
|
|
|
| Re: Common Business Framework [message #11591 is a reply to message #11554] |
Wed, 30 November 2005 16:39 |
 Werner Keil
Messages: 96
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Juergen Weber wrote:
> Eishay Smith wrote:
>>* Data restrictions enforced by HIPPA causing the patient info to look
>>different in both systems
HIPPA is only for US users and applications. It is of no relevance for
apps in the UK, other EU countries or Asia. I am not even sure, if Canada
has adopted it, or if it is US only.
So unlike international standards like HL7 or ICD this must also be an
(optional) layer and component, not a core part of OHF.
Otherwise the user base will be limited to only US or maybe North America.
And that does not seem to meet the ideas of the Eclipse Foundation
(covering most of the IT-enabled world ;-)
>> There are few things that both scenarios have in common are some basic
>> demographic data, but I wonder if this by its own is a good enough
>> reason for such an architectural decision. I guess a common demographic
>> data structure is more reasonable.
> Yes, there certainly is health specific functionality. But it should be in
> a layer above the Common Business Framework, whereas the business
> framework should know nothing about X-ray images. And other areas like
> banking, insurance, retail or government could base their applications on
> the Common Business Framework (or even on their own frameworks based on
> Common Business Framework).
> In the Common Business Framework I see functionality like
> o Security
> o Communication
> o Data mapping
> o Data presentation
> o Data persistence
> o Reports
> o Document archiving
> o Workflow
Some of those ideas sound very good. Keep in mind, that parts like Data
mapping or persistence have just been covered by major new Eclipse
projects like DTP, or the Data presentation might be useful together with
projects such as BIRT...
I guess there is also already a Workflow sub-project?
> Everything of these you need in an health administration application, but
> also in every other business application.
>> And another thing, donât use âOpen Business
>> Frameworkâ without checking it first with SAP ;-)
> Yes, indeed, Common Business Framework might make it a lot easier to start
> a competition to SAP.
> Juergen
Try to propagate that idea of competing with SAP to IBM ;-)
You might get a lot more support from them doing so?
Werner
|
|
| |
| Re: Common Business Framework [message #565893 is a reply to message #11518] |
Tue, 29 November 2005 12:31 |
Juergen Weber
Messages: 65
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Eishay Smith wrote:
> There are few things that both scenarios have in common are some basic
> demographic data, but I wonder if this by its own is a good enough
> reason for such an architectural decision. I guess a common demographic
> data structure is more reasonable.
Yes, there certainly is health specific functionality. But it should be in
a layer above the Common Business Framework, whereas the business
framework should know nothing about X-ray images. And other areas like
banking, insurance, retail or government could base their applications on
the Common Business Framework (or even on their own frameworks based on
Common Business Framework).
In the Common Business Framework I see functionality like
o Security
o Communication
o Data mapping
o Data presentation
o Data persistence
o Reports
o Document archiving
o Workflow
Everything of these you need in an health administration application, but
also in every other business application.
> And another thing, donât use âOpen Business
> Frameworkâ without checking it first with SAP ;-)
Yes, indeed, Common Business Framework might make it a lot easier to start
a competition to SAP.
Juergen
|
|
|
| Re: Common Business Framework [message #565912 is a reply to message #11554] |
Wed, 30 November 2005 16:39 |
Werner Keil
Messages: 96
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Juergen Weber wrote:
> Eishay Smith wrote:
>>* Data restrictions enforced by HIPPA causing the patient info to look
>>different in both systems
HIPPA is only for US users and applications. It is of no relevance for
apps in the UK, other EU countries or Asia. I am not even sure, if Canada
has adopted it, or if it is US only.
So unlike international standards like HL7 or ICD this must also be an
(optional) layer and component, not a core part of OHF.
Otherwise the user base will be limited to only US or maybe North America.
And that does not seem to meet the ideas of the Eclipse Foundation
(covering most of the IT-enabled world ;-)
>> There are few things that both scenarios have in common are some basic
>> demographic data, but I wonder if this by its own is a good enough
>> reason for such an architectural decision. I guess a common demographic
>> data structure is more reasonable.
> Yes, there certainly is health specific functionality. But it should be in
> a layer above the Common Business Framework, whereas the business
> framework should know nothing about X-ray images. And other areas like
> banking, insurance, retail or government could base their applications on
> the Common Business Framework (or even on their own frameworks based on
> Common Business Framework).
> In the Common Business Framework I see functionality like
> o Security
> o Communication
> o Data mapping
> o Data presentation
> o Data persistence
> o Reports
> o Document archiving
> o Workflow
Some of those ideas sound very good. Keep in mind, that parts like Data
mapping or persistence have just been covered by major new Eclipse
projects like DTP, or the Data presentation might be useful together with
projects such as BIRT...
I guess there is also already a Workflow sub-project?
> Everything of these you need in an health administration application, but
> also in every other business application.
>> And another thing, donât use âOpen Business
>> Frameworkâ without checking it first with SAP ;-)
> Yes, indeed, Common Business Framework might make it a lot easier to start
> a competition to SAP.
> Juergen
Try to propagate that idea of competing with SAP to IBM ;-)
You might get a lot more support from them doing so?
Werner
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 09 03:39:25 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03226 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
