USM Bish wrote: >[rest snipped] > > > >o The proposal of summarising important discussions is nice. It > is also quite unique. > >o Implementation would be a hurdle, because of the following :- > > a) You need the co-ordinating agency first, and then the core > group needs to set the ball rolling ... > > b) Voluntary effort always works for intellctually stimulating > things. IOW, the satisfaction to effort ratio would have to > be high. In this type of thing, with smaller expected ratios > voluntary jobs would have to be done military style: "One > must be detailed to volunteer" ;-) > > I hope there would be satisfaction from having produced a nice readable article (let's call it that for now) which will be read by many others later on. Particularly if we index and present all the articles well.
> c) Need a proper flow chart/ UML of the action plan ;-) > > I think this is a good idea, although I often get flak for suggesting such things - too much process for some people. >o I can help in the Medical portions. I am a medical graduate of > 1976 vintage, with a Diploma in Aerospace Medicine and MD.I am > also an unqualified programmer/ IT man of sorts, with initial > forays into programming since CP/M days, more or less self > taught, having learnt tits and bits from works of 'gurus' like > Knuth and Wirth. OOP is a oops situation for me but I am quite > okay at scripting (shell, perl, php) and K&R C (programmed in > pascal style) ! I am totally ANTI-M$, and on Linux/ *BSD since > 1995. > > You are eminently qualified obviously. I am wondering if the best approach for this "editor" job is to get a sort of disinterested editor (who is reasonable at dissertation however) to collate existing discussion material into an article - a bit like a journalist or popular science writer - rather than an expert to write an article which might be more like an academic paper extolling one point of view, but perhaps not representing the discussion adequately. At least these two styles or writing are well-recognised. Perhaps as an experiment, we can just use this current topic of "age". Nathan Lea at CHIME at UCL has offered to have a go at editing something - he is an excellent writer & researcher, but not a doctor - this will mean he will use pieces of what you and other clinical people have said in various posts (Sam has another nice summary a few articles earlier). My suggestion is to try an experiment - let's just see if we as a group can produce: - an article summarising the "age" discussion. Needs decent headings to be thought up; can;t be too long; should cover all informed opinions found in posts - a process or flowchart for doing this habitually Reactions? - thomas beale - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
