On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Jason Pickering < jason.p.picker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Abyot, > I personally find this a bit of an academic discussion > I am not sure whether it is academic or not - that is just my view. Even if it is, I guess academics also informs practice. > From an implementation standpoint having concepts like Gender pre-defined > seems to make a lot of sense to me. This is sort of like saying, we should > not have pre-defined periods (which we do), and it would be up to the user > to define them (although they should be essentially self-obvious and > defining them has been proven in the field to be very painful). Having some > really basic and well accepted concepts (and I would go as far as data > elements, such as "Population") would be very useful. We cannot argue about > gender and some other concepts which are essentially universal in almost all > implementations of DHIS2 to date. One of the big problems from an > implementation standpoint is that when new users attempt to use DHIS, it is > blank. There is nothing there. We have tried to fill this gap a bit with > documentation, but having a set of predfined concepts (or data elements or > periods or even orgunits a la HealthMapper), would certainly not hurt. If > there are purists who want to delete them and start over, they should be > more than free to do so. However, if it eases the standardization with other > systems or whatever Bob is attempting to do (which I am sure it would), I > see no harm in it. > > Nonetheless, I do not want us to get distracted by this. The real task at > hand is fixing the data element/category logic, which we know has > limitations and which implementers (such as myself) have had to struggle > with. I have been a strong critic of the business logic, while believing the > model is not far off (although I do believe having a hierarchical and > transient association is eventually going to be necessary). Once we realize > that there is not much difference between an orgunit, and period and a data > element/category option, the better and simpler it will be for both > developers and implementers. > > > Respectfully, > > Jason > > > On Sep 22, 2011 5:27 PM, "Knut Staring" <knu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Designing to enable bootstrapping > > > > Regards, Knut (via mobile phone) > > On Sep 22, 2011 5:13 PM, "Abyot Gizaw" <aby...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I take bootstrapping at implementation level than at design level > >> > >> 2011/9/22 Lars Helge Ă˜verland <larshe...@gmail.com> > >> > >>> I think "bootstrapping" with most popular concepts make sense here. We > >>> are not really tying anyone's hands, just offering some standard > >>> options, one can always remove or add new ones. > >>> > >>> Lars > >>> >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs Post to : dhis2-devs@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dhis2-devs More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp