Open juliapampus opened 1 month ago
Hi, here is the current list of adopters that we have. Currently it's divided into two parts (Organizations and R&D Projects). We may discuss how to organize the information accordingly.
1) Organizations
2) R&D Projects
I'd highly appreciate if you could add any missing party to the list.
@anilturkmayali Thank you very much! We would also need some links to their technical assets that actually implement the protocol. I would see company logos rather on a website, and references to repositories in our list of adoptions. WDYT?
@juliapampus Totally agree. We can reach out to all of them and ask for the: 1) Links to the technical assets that implement DSP (whether this is a repo, or a web page, etc.) 2) If nothing is available in public, we may ask for a short description of the work (1-3 sentences) to explain where DSP has been used.
We can show all this information on a tabular format such as: | Company Logo | Link to Repo or Description |
---|---|---|
Company 1 utilizes Dataspace Protocol to enable standardized data exchange between electronic health record systems, as part of the Hospital-X project, to ensure compliance with healthcare data standards. Link | ||
Sample link to the repository of the implementation Link |
Please let me know if there is anything that needs to be added to this.
Adopter vs Conformance Assessment differentiation should be made. "Proof of conformity" approach should be considered, via a strong disclaimer. Not a recognition/endorsement of conformity.
TCK (or any other prerequisite) should be considered.
In the EDC project, we maintain a list of adoption projects, that use the EDC. Should we introduce this also for the DSP project, or should this be done elsewhere?