Hi Diego & Thomas, I think this should be out of the scope of the new semantic/structural archetypes & templates specs, and should be included in a new specification of GUI Templates. I been working on this subject for a while and want to formalize a XML format to have GUI directives / GUI definition (input controls, position, visibility, order, ...) and binding with structural archetypes and templates (in a system this bindings should be to OPTs). http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/impl/GUI+directives+for+visualization+templates
On february/march 2012 I'll be working on this to improve the flexibility of our current templates: http://code.google.com/p/open-ehr-gen-framework/source/browse/#svn%2Ftrunk%2Fopen-ehr-gen%2Ftemplates%2Fhce If anyone want to work on this, would be a pleasure to colaborate. FYI: We have developed a prototype editor for those GUI templates: http://code.google.com/p/template-editor-open-ehr-gen/ It is web based, and can access archetypes repositories via HTTP to pull archetypes to be included in a GUI template. -- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 19:03:32 +0000 From: [email protected] To: openehr-technical at openehr.org Subject: Re: pass_through attribute in ADL 1.5 On 05/01/2012 08:54, Diego Bosc? wrote: Put a couple of comments on the wiki, but I think it is a thing that should be discussed on the list. In ADL 1.5 a flag 'pass_through' was added. Its definition is 'Allows nodes required for structuring data but otherwise redundant for screen display and reporting to be detected by rendering software'. So now we have a GUI directive on the ADL. Shouldn't this be a part of the reference model information (if it is never supposed to be displayed) or part of a 'visualization template' (another different level). I would say that more information about visualization will be needed, and having visualization information separated between two different places feels like a bad design move. In general I am inclined to agree, and I have to say I have been in two minds about having this attribute in there. I am convinced by clinical modellers who say that something is needed to control interior tree nodes not appearing on the GUI (indeed, it is visual pollution). And - even if the template were being used to build a message definition (generated XSD or similar), and the data were processed into some report or other output, this attribute would be respected (technically, this is still 'user interface'). I know the passthrough attribute is used often from the current .oet template usage, so we need a way of dealing with the requirement. If we take it out, and say it is a GUI directive, the problem is we currently have no formal framework for that yet. Maybe the lesser of two evils is to do what Koray (I think?) said, and make it a special kind of annotation. I have implemented annotations in ADL/AOM 1.5, and they work nicely. We need to agree on some kind of standard representation, e.g. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120109/ad1e1860/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: fdcdijfa.png Type: image/png Size: 8902 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120109/ad1e1860/attachment.png>
