jump to navigation

Future directions for eHealth interfaces April 4, 2005

Posted by Hans in : analysis, open source , add a comment

As our understanding of technology increases, I’m sure that we will be able to interact with computers and other technologies in different ways. Currently, we essentially use a keyboard and a screen. The BBC reports on some new technology developments that suggest new possible ways of interacting with computers using “body talk“.

What I find most interesting is the potential application to ehealth, particularly for those people/patients with physical disabilities - these new and novel interfaces could potentially offer “augmentative” technologies to access health resources. The current technology profiled is focused on handheld or mobile technologies, but the concept could be expanded to include other technologies. Dr. Brewster explains that “If you could do something with your hands, or other gestures you would not have to take it out of your pocket”. This type of interface seems wonderfully suited for applications in healthcare.

Some local research currently underway at the University of Toronto includes Dr. Steven Mann’s work using the eye. You can read more about his research at http://eyetap.org.

Popularity: 7% [?]

"The Cathedral and the Bazaar" October 13, 2004

Posted by Hans in : open source, reviews , 1 comment so far

Review

Okay, I’ve finished reading The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond and I must say that I am now far more educated on the subject of “open source”. From a purely “book review” perspective, Raymond does a wonderful job of balancing the conceptual issues with the more technical examples related to open source. I actually think that he presents the open source “argument” (if you will) very convincingly - on many levels, I am now “convinced”. The essays are easy to read, and he does a good job of leading the reading through a series of logical arguments and thread of thoughts.

Basically, the argument for open source is that development costs are reduced to almost zero, as tiny contributions from the community of contributors add up - in a sense, it’s like the principle behind parallel computing. Raymond makes an interesting observation that we shouldn’t try and push open source concepts to things that are not software related, and i think I would tend to agree. The conditions for software are unique to this area, and are not easily duplicated in other areas (this is not to suggest open source models cannot be used in other domains). I also found Raymond’s argument that open source isn’t a binary state, but rather the natural evolution of software, wherein software begins in a more or less “closed source” state and then matures, and ultimately becomes “open source” to be very interesting.

Personal thoughts

I don’t feel as if I am able to articulate cogent counter-responses to the evidence and arguments presented by Raymond. What I wish he was able to do, is examine in what ways the “closed source” model has served us, and why it is breaking down. Perhaps this statement is a reflection of my unconscious clinging to the “closed source” model. I ask the question, for which I didn’t receive a completely convincing argument - when is it advantageous to be closed source? Raymond presents a few examples, but I would have liked a little more explanation on the examples - it was as if he thinks that almost all software will ultimately move toward open source.

What I must agree with, however, is this notion that software cannot be viewed within a manufacturing or product model. I think that the evidence demonstrating this aspect is pretty clear.

More thoughts as open source relates to eHealth…

Popularity: 16% [?]

Open Source March 7, 2004

Posted by Hans in : open source , add a comment

I’ve been thinking about open source software (OSS) and its potential. Actually, I’m interested in investigating the relationship, if any, between OSS and ehealth. I understand the following things about OSS:

What really boggles me is in trying to understand the “business model” for open source software companies. This notion of “making freely available” one’s intellectual property (IP) is somewhat perplexing to me. In the traditional product (and even service) models of business, IP is a closely guarded secret - something that you don’t share. Money is made when you allow people to use the IP, but not have it.

I’ve been having on-going discussions and debates with fellow members of the Centre (Grant McInnes and MJ Suhonos) about developments and possible applications to ehealth. I think that OSS can be used very effectively within health care - just not sure how. More to come on this topic as I think it through.

If you are interested in learning more about OSS, you can try the following two resources:

1. The Cathedral and Bazaar: I’m told that this book is lthe “bible” for open source, outlining the history, development, and current issues. The link takes you to Amazon.com’s page for the book.

2. Open Source Conference by the Knowledge Media Design Institute: This conference is being held at the University of Toronto (May 9 - 11, 2004). There is a session on open source and health care which should be interesting.

Popularity: 13% [?]