Hi Tom, I wasn't aware of that - thanks. My initial thinking was to introduce GUI directives at the template level, persisting with it and passing onto OPT. I was reluctant to introduce "yet-another-layer" due to mainly maintainability concerns but it has been suggested that tooling should be able to handle that and hide complexity from users. That makes sense now (still with caution though ;).
Until this is defined may I suggest reserving a keyword (i.e. "GUI directive") for use in annotations section. Or perhaps this can just be a design-pattern as you originally suggested which we all stick to so that our existing implementations will have some level of interoperability? I'd be very keen to contribute to the definition of a new GUI artefact; perhaps it'd be great if you could provide a basis for (i.e. such as an initial set of requirements and design principles inline with the current specs and where openEHR wants to go) and facilitate the discussions. Referring back to Eric's and Thilo's messages perhaps we can work as a working group or a SIG and come up with useful proposals. Another point was whether there were any directives to do with the structure and semantics (hence domain knowledge) within the list we came up with. The "CoreConcept" directive which basically depicts whether a CLUSTER and its downstream items can be recorded as absent, indeterminate etc. Ian also pointed out a more comprehensive set of requirements around the same issue referring the need to the need to represent detailed clinical findings without the need to insert unnecessary CLUSTERS for single ELEMENTS which may hold further ELEMENTS in future when there is a need to extend. I am not aware of the result of this discussion (if any) either. Cheers, -koray From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: Thursday, 30 December 2010 1:10 p.m. To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: Re: Archetype & Template ANNOTATIONS - requirements? On 29/12/2010 23:53, Koray Atalag wrote: Hi Tom, a very comprehensive set of questions to determine the requirements... I will provide my point by point feedback shortly but I have one objection/suggestion re using annotations for GUI matters. As name implies annotations seem to me something for the humans; providing context and additional information about a particular data point. Exploiting this section for GUI generation which will be consumed by GUI tools/generators do not seem all too appropriate to me. What I have in mind is a separate section for GUI Directives or at least introduce a reserved keyword for this purpose within annotations section. I think that'll ensure more consistent and safe implementations by different groups. Both support your points about tag standardisation... Hi Koray, the annotations section is not connected with GUI directives. I think we are all agreed they will be in a completely separate artefact. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101230/b2817693/attachment.html>
