Hi Sam! On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 18:20, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > Hi Erik > Can you tell me what search capabilities you want in CKM that are not there. > You can export a prot?g? ontology, all the archetypes and have all the > search power we have thought of from the asset management platform. > Unsearchable seems a little unfair.
If you read my CKM-search-reasoning in other related messages carefully again you will see that I have been talking about the CKM not being searchable via major search engines (like Google Search) hence the wording "open public searchable space". The problem is that the CKM content currently is "locked in" behind passwords and a search-engine-unfriendly application structure so that the content is not a proper part of the "web" that search engine spiders can index. This is a fairly simple technical publishing problem that can be solved if there is a will from the ones owning the CKM application. A more serious meta-problem is if the search-engine-unfriendliness is not seen as a problem by the application owners and by the foundation using the application. The wiki and mailinglists (via archives) do not suffer from this searchability problem, they were built with openness in mind and are fully searchable and any discussion regarding certain archetypes in them etc will be found. An extra plus is that their content can also be archived by sites like http://www.archive.org In openEHR we are often talking about the value of capturing clinical context in order to interpret data, as a thought-experiment try to apply the same thinking regarding archetype development. You (and your search queries) might want to see the context of discussion and the review comments for archetypes, not just the final archetypes. Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 (Mail & tel. recently changed, so please update your contact lists.) >> -----Original Message----- >> From: openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk [mailto:openehr- >> technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Erik Sundvall >> Sent: 19 November 2009 09:35 >> To: For openEHR clinical discussions >> Cc: For openEHR technical discussions >> Subject: Re: openEHR community on Google Wave >> >> Hi! >> >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 06:48, Heather Leslie >> <heather.leslie at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: >> > If I have caused any confusion, I apologise. I'm just enthusiastic >> and >> > interested to further explore the potential (or not) offered by >> Google >> > Wave. >> >> It is a very nice initiative Heather and there is no need to >> apologise, just a need to get the discussions out in open public >> searchable space (and that also goes for the currently unsearchable >> CKM). >> >> I believe that in a set of properly managed wave conversations it >> might be easier to follow the discussion flow, and it might be a less >> fragmented user experience than the current CKM is. If done right and >> when there are more wave providers than Google (since wave uses a >> truly open protocol) then we could at the same time get rid of the >> current CKM vendor lock-in and extension limitations (without creating >> another vendor lock in). >> >> > While these initial 'coordinating waves' are public, small groups may >> go off >> > and use a private Wave to work on a task or project - just like they >> do now >> > using email, skype or IM. >> >> Yes of course some conversations (or parts of conversations) will >> always be private since humans prefer to work that way sometimes. The >> problem is if things are inaccessible and unsearchable even when there >> is no intention to keep the discussion private. >> >> > The result should be identical - submitting the >> > draft archetype to CKM or contributing to the email lists or wiki. >> >> If wave-based tools become widespread and powerful enough to do >> openEHR review, voting etc., then I don't see CKM as a necessary step >> in the pipeline to finally submitting archetypes/templates to simple >> stable repositories. Every shift of tools along the way adds a >> potential user confusion. >> >> By the way, have you tried using mindmapping gadgets for openEHR >> related development in wave, I found an open source mindmapping gadget >> that even includes a voting mechanism and freemind-import facilities >> at: >> http://wave-samples-gallery.appspot.com/about_app?app_id=64007 >> See also: http://www.brucecooper.net/2009/11/mind-map-gadget-for- >> google-wave.html >> And since the mindmapping gadget is open source it could easily be >> modified by any java/GWT developer to add features that you'd find >> useful for openEHR related use :-) >> >> Best regards, >> Erik Sundvall >> erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ ?Tel: +46-13-286733 >> (Mail & tel. recently changed, so please update your contact lists.) >> >> P.s. To add voting to suitable items (e.g. corresponding to when you >> use voting in CKM) it seems like >> http://wave-samples-gallery.appspot.com/about_app?app_id=23006 might >> be useful. I guess a proper discussion will often solve things without >> the need for voting though... >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
