Having read the various postings on this topic, (and in the hope that
everyone's not totally bored by to death by it), it seems to me that
there are three areas to be considered (and all are getting mixed up in
the discussion, and the market offerings, hence the problem some of us
are having with this area).
First of all, there's the physical network. The world is rapidly
becoming (has already become?) a network of networks. However, I
contend that in the same way as phone calls are made, and lights are
switched on, no-one's really interested in how the network works, or
how connections are made, provided the connection is of an acceptable
quality. Therefore we should forget about the underlying network, 'cos
it shouldn't be important.
The second area to consider are the services needed to support your
personal and your organisation's activities, such as WWW, ftp, email,
EDI, newsgroups, telnet, IRC, telephony, videoconferencing, audio etc
etc (funny how they can all be provided using Web technologies, isn't
it?) ;-)) These services need to be available on a mix and match
basis, with each having a range of facilities to meet different needs.
They're also subject to change and development as new uses of the
technology and information management appear (eg Web telephony). The
interesting point is that these services are generic; they're
happening world-wide (and therefore have become the de-facto standard);
and they're network independent (especially since TCP/IP networking is
becoming the norm).
The final area to be addressed is the information that runs over the
network using the services described above. This information can often
be specific to a particular sector (eg Health). If we assume that the
underlying networks and services are inherently insecure, then isn't
the requirement the transmission and receipt of secure information
(where necessary) over insecure networks? I'm sure that experts such as
Ross can say whether this is feasible or not (and having seen PGP
messages on this maillist, it seems to me that it is!)
Based on the above, isn't the need as follows?
A cost-effective way of gaining access to a network of networks;
Generic and common services to support a wide range of information
transfer needs (both Internet and Intranet);
An easy and low-cost way way to transfer or access data without being
limited by system architecture (especially legacy systems);
Facilities for ensuring that, where necessary, information can be
transferred in a secure and confidemtial manner, if determined by the
community involved, whose responsibility this would be.
If the above musings are valid, then what are the separate or unique
services or facilities required by the NHS, apart from the ability to
use NHS buying power to deliver ubiquitous low cost connections and
services for the benefit of all? (And isn't this comparable to what
Janet has achieved for the academic community?)
Makes you think, doesn't it, Ahmad? (But if the argument is specious
then I'd be interested in having the flaws identified).
(Note for lurkers: These are personal views, and are offered to aid the
debate on Health informatics)
(Dons suit of armour and grabs fan.....)
-----------------------------------------------------
Henry Cohen
Windeler Cohen Associates/Health Web Services Limited
Management Consultancy in IT and Telecommunications
Phone: +44 (171) 731 5354 Fax: +44 (171) 731 5764
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|