Hi Ian, You are raising concerns from a tool user perspective, and anything related to your user experience IMHO belongs to another discussion. Web based applications are not there because they are supposed to be collaboration hubs. The recent explosion (and in a way, a bubble) of social networking may give that impression, but web apps are also about easy deployment and management. These two key aspects of software become extremely important especially in small development teams. Unfortunately, most modern software development technologies arrive with their own runtimes, (.net framework, jre etc) and it quickly becomes a nightmare to deploy and update software. Even with a limited amount of people doing something such as developing archetypes, support quickly gets out of control. If you can match a desktop application using a web application, you almost always win the competition (from the supply side of view). Given the state we are in, I'd still choose web based apps.
Kind regards Seref On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > Hi Ian > > My interest is the pain we get as the tools get developed and tweaked as does > ADL and multiple versions. > > Also, if we are to use Thomas' engine it should tip the balance a bit further > as installing and updating numerous layers gets even more painful. > > Finally, web tools are easier to access on multiple devices including mobile. > > Cheers San > > Sent from my phone > > On 10/09/2011, at 1:10 AM, Ian McNicoll <Ian.McNicoll at > oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> One of the suggestions in the White Paper which appears to have >> universal support is a move to support much more open-source tools >> development. Clearly some tooling must be web-based e.g repository >> management and associated formal and informal discussion e.g. CKM and >> any new community repository. >> >> However, I am much less clear on why we might need web-based primary >> authoring tools for archetypes and templates. Diego, Pablo and Sam are >> all keen on this approach but I remain unconvinced that this is really >> a key requirement, given that archetype authoring is in essence a >> solitary activity much like any other code development. By all means >> build in much better integration with repositories and other >> mechanisms to allow joint working, but even with modern javascript >> libraries and Flex-style components, HTML-based tooling just feels >> like it adds a layer of development complexity and probably some >> usability-clunkiness which is not offset by the benefits. >> >> Maybe I am just an old-timer but having waited for may years to get >> the kind of development environment that Visual Studio, Eclipse and >> equivalents bring, and that I think is equally required for archetype >> development, I am loathe for us to get slowed-down by insisting on a >> 'web-based'. >> >> What do others think? >> >> Ian >> >> Dr Ian McNicoll >> office +44 (0)1536 414 994 >> fax +44 (0)1536 516317 >> mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 >> skype ianmcnicoll >> ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com >> >> Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK >> openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge >> Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL >> BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
