Hi,
I think a couple of things could be changed to make CKM more
search-friendly, but I also think we have to look carefully what we want
and where:
* The idea behind linking comments/discussions directly to an
archetype and not just using a mailing list or the like is that we
want comments for an archetype gathered in one place so that they
are in fact easier accessible than via common search engines.
I certainly felt that a lot of discussions were repeated on the
mailing lists, because nobody could remember that the question had
been asked for that archetype already.
However, currently it is only possible to search comments for a
certain archetype and we may want to search for comments of all
archetypes (because we know what we are searching for, but not
exactly for which archetype it may have been posted).
* All new comments are already available by a news feed you just
need to subscribe to as well as on the Dashboard. Also you can
select to get email notifications on any new comment (or comments
for a specific archetype or comment for a specific thread of
comments.)
There are probably tools to take a newsfeed and post the contents
somewhere for anybody who likes to do this.
However, there may be additional value to automatically post the
comments to somewhere where they are indexable from google etc.
This e.g. could be another openEHR mailing list that receives all
new comments.
* We could also make the comments available without having to log in
to CKM if people feel strongly about this.
Then only if you want to post a new comment you need to log in and
probably only access the commenters' profiles once logged in as well.
* With regard to archetype reviews, I am not so sure if they should
be accessible without even logging in.
Neither I am sure if there is value in having them indexed by
search engines. I strongly believe that they need to be structured
and displayed in an archetype-specific way and groupable by review
rounds, directly linked to the way the archetype looked liked at
that stage of the review process, etc. to be useful. Everybody can
access all reviews in CKM (when logged in), while reviewers can
choose to be anonymous (and only reveal their identity to other
members of the review team). Certainly the CKM approach is more
open than any HL7 (or the like) process I have seen. Everybody can
access it and everybody who wants to can participate.
* With regards to archetypes, you can download all of them or a
selection of them. There are webservices to access them, and a
couple more are going to be added in the next release as discussed
on the wiki and wave. And if there is need for more, we can always
add them
* When google wave is out of beta and open to everybody, we will
certainly explore how we can make use of it, integrated in CKM
and/or as a starting point for archetype development, etc.
Regards
Sebastian
>
> Thomas Beale wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure what use having search engines seeing into the CKM is.
>> We have robots turned off for all SVN repositories, including the one
>> that used to hold all the archetypes. Search engines only tell you
>> about things you did not already know about; whether they could
>> report anything coherent from CKM I am not sure, same as for all the
>> source code in the SVN repositories. Or are you suggesting we make
>> all that searchable as well (it kills performance by the way).
>>
>> Google or any other search engine doesn't know how to search CKM in
>> an intelligent fashion....but if you go into CKM, which is fully
>> open, you can see everything. I am unclear on the problem.
>>
>> - thomas beale
>>
>>
>> Erik Sundvall wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20091204/37270d59/attachment.html>
