On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 01:33:28PM -0700, Jim Busser wrote: > I agree that any temptation to enable "supporting" workflow not And I agree that temptation is a valid one. I think all the confusion arose from my bad naming (tracking) of what we are about to do (reviewed status handling).
> The tracking table, over and above its indexing/linking of content, > will lend itself nicely to making sure that what needs to be seen > *is/was* seen and can also easily enough be *seen again*. So are we > agreed GNUmed is at this point able to consider not only the > "structure", "mapping" and "input" of data but also construction of > clinical (not admin) workflow? In a way, yes. "Seen" seems to be such a basic and mandatory workflow requirement that it'll be implemented at this stage already (as opposed to, say, initiate_action - await_result workflow). > So part of the purpose/value of what I asked, and Karsten's replies, > is to help keep clear any separation of the administrative and > clinical parts? And also, that I might try to maintain an inventory, > so that when it comes time for anyone to work on practice management, > these unaddressed pieces, and their relationship to what is already > implemented in GNUmed, might be more effectively planned? Surely. Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 _______________________________________________ Gnumed-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumed-devel
