On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 12:04:20PM -0700, James Busser wrote: > - finally (for now) there is ambiguity in English in the meaning of the > word "review" because to review can simply mean "to look at (again)" and > may or may not mean to examine critically, This is a known shortcoming of the choice "review", yes.
> and even if critical > examination of the results was performed, it is possible to choose not to > record this activity. In point of fact, although not everyone would vote > in favour, it could be possible for each view to create a row in > clin.reviewed_test_results which would capture whoever it was that > "reviewed" these results. There's several arguments against that: - it generates excessive amounts of rows - it doesn't really help as it doesn't really record *who* did *what* - whatever *can* be recorded (eg a particular query was run against the database) can already be done from within the postgresl server log > What we are really talking about is > *acknowledging* (and implying the taking of responsibility for) the > results. I am OK to leave the name "review" in schema's columns > (fields). However I think it advisable that in the user interface we use > the word "Sign.." on the button, and in the widget change "This review" > to "This signing" (and "the review" to "this signing"). Done. > If this is agreed > to be a good idea then this revision could be similarly applied to the > document signing. Started. Feel free to point out places where this needs to be done. 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
