Andrew Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Customizability is the main strength of OIO. It's main weakness is its installation! :-)
The problem is the psycopgDA adaptor and the permissions having to be changed to postgres user. Can this compromise security?
Zope 3 works with python 2.4 and the psycopgDA 2.x version. This version of psycopgDA is more pythonish and the installation is far more transparent as a result. One day if OIO can migrate to zope 3 as a zxcm file, this may solve the problem!
Nandalal
On 3/10/06, Brian Braywrote:
> Thanks Denny and Aldric for the warm greeting.
>
> There have certainly been some interesting discussions while I was gone.
> (I'm just up to the end of 2003).
Hi Brian,
Welcome back!
> I hav e a question for Andrew Ho. In the discussion about Vista/OIO
> complementarity, you discussed the concept that OIO let's users safely
> customize forms.
Each form has an unique form name and version number within each OIO
server instance:
For example, "Psychiatric Progress Note version 1". Customizing a form
could mean 1) creating a new version using the same form name, or 2)
copying some of the question items into a new form with a different
form name, or 3) changing an existing form version, which requires
safe migration of existing data.
> I'm curious how this is done, particularly related to
> the completeness and semantics of data elements.
Completeness can never be assured without significantly restricting
customizability. For example, deleting the "Gender" question from an
existing form.
Semantic connections between forms (and versions) require
"translators" that are separately defined as necessary.
> I know I should RTFM, but a discussion might be more
> interesting...especially if some others with flexible systems can chime in.
Sounds good!
Best regards,
Andrew
--
Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes
www.TxOutcome.Org
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
