Link to the wiki page?
2009/12/4 Erik Sundvall <erik.sundvall at liu.se>:
> Thanks Sebastian!
>
> You nicely adressed most of my concerns and seem to understand the problems.
>
> Tom & Sam: In this thread on Nov 17 I wrote "Many people start problem
> solving by a using a search engine, so that the discussions need to be
> publicly available for reading without login". That seems to be the
> point you missed but Sebastian understood. Thanks Sebastian!
>
> Tom: If you already know where to look then you have done half the
> job, I tried to adress the problem of not knowing where to look (e.g.
> questions like "is there any openEHR work regarding deafness"). Tom
> you are probably one of the few people that actually know exactly
> where to look for any thinkable openEHR thing, but you are an
> exception ;-) (In a positve sense.)
>
> Tom wrote:
>> We have robots turned off for all SVN repositories, including the one that
>> used to
>> hold all the archetypes.
>
> Once upon a time not even the specifications were searchable, that was
> easily solved by copying releases to a web directory
>
> Koray: you said "Ocean - I see it as a social service organisation
> rather than a commercial entity by the way :P"
>
> That view is not completely shared everywhere. I agree that Ocean
> Informatics contributes tremendously to openEHR. Leading, starting and
> contributing to open projects is nowadays something many commercial
> companies do including gigants like IBM and Sun. The reason is not
> just altruistic, rather it is bothe a kind of efficient marketing of
> other related services and a way of tapping in to a wider community of
> resources in a way benefiting all involved parties. How to do this
> open/commercial mix in a good way is really not easy, Sun has for
> example had some problems with this.
>
> Koray, the "behind doors"-thing I think regard e.g. the widely
> circulating rumours that the OpenEHR-fondation and/or Ocean has
> invited some organisations and/or companies to a meeting regarding the
> "commersialisation of openEHR" or something and possibly to the fact
> that the Foundation Board seems only accountable to itself. I don't
> really know exactly what different people know or think, but I agree
> that a discussion would be valuable. But the discussion is neither
> technical or clinical so I'll try to stop abusing these lists for that
> purpose and have started a wiki page at:
>
> The openEHR community is wonderful and contributions from companies,
> organisations, universities etc. are fantastic. I am sure that
> potential tensions can be solved and misunderstandings can be cleared
> if discussed openly. (On the wikipage maybe?) I also understand that
> there are real issues regarding funding that need to be solved, and
> hope that the whole community will sooner or later be entrusted to
> listen in to and contribute to those discussions.
>
> 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 Sebastian regarding archetype reviews: yes they would be
> better presented together with the context they were written in, so
> I'd suggest that such a view would showing them in context could be
> created and being the one exposed to search engines, not every comment
> as an individual page.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 07:52, Sebastian Garde
> <sebastian.garde at oceaninformatics.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
--
Diego Bosc? Tom?s <diebosto at fis.upv.es>
<yampeku at gmail.com>
Grupo IBIME
Instituto ITACA - Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia
Acceso B
Edificio 8G
Camino Vera s/n
46022 VALENCIA (Spain)
ext: 75277
http://ibime.upv.es
