"All happy families are alike, but an unhappy family is unhappy after its
own fashion" (Anna Karenin) - The same applies, in spades, to computer
software.
The idea of "best" is a Platonic hangover. There is no such thing as the
ideal. Heidegger got it right when he implied that we only ever notice what
is broken.. the door handle which does not open the door etc. The same with
computers.. The email system or browser which does just what I expect is
fine. Anything I notice is not (and that includes web sites which blink).
Evaluation should never try to rate utility, only disutility.
Tim Benson
Abies e-Health
12 St Georges Road, London, NW11 0LR
020 8455 8106; 07768 825 012 (mob); 020 8458 9577 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew po-jung Ho [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 18 March 2001 1:08
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: best concepts
>
>
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 19:05:54 philippe Ameline wrote:
> >> ... We have been reviewing it since we want to add xxx
> functions to the
> >OIO system. It would make sense to not re-invent the wheel if their
> >specification is useful ...
> >
> >It seems to me most projects have *useful specifications* that could help
> >other projects - even if overall paradigms are differents.
>
> Hi Phillipe,
>
> I think you have a very good idea.
>
> However, while that may be a good goal, it often takes a bit of
> work to communicate those potentially good ideas. For example,
> Thomas Beale has been expending a lot of effort describing his
> concepts as embodied by the GEHR project. He has posted many
> messages to the openhealth-list and has made his paper and many
> many pages of documentation available through his web site(s).
> Of course, many of us have been doing our part asking him lots of
> questions :-). However, if not for his patience and willingness
> to educate the rest of us, we will not be able to make use of his
> good ideas.
>
> >Do you think possible to share the "best concepts" that could
> improve each
> >other project.
>
> That is the idea behind having an interactive repository of
> projects and user feedback/reviews at the OIO Library. Hopefully
> we will be able to have more accessible and more organized
> information about each project (with their good and bad ideas
> exposed). The openhealth mailing list is great but a bit more
> difficult to retrieve information from the list archives since
> everything is in freetext format.
>
> >The first step could consist in shortly writing, for each
> project, its goal
> >(could be clinical decision system, or web sharing...), what
> works well (and
> >can help others) and what's missing (maybe someone as it).
>
> Exactly. I have just released OIO Library v.1.1 that offers these
> features. The requirement was that it must be easy to update and
> allow diverse view points. This means an online, interactive
> repository of user reviews. Of course, every project listed in
> the OIO Library has a short description and links to its home
> page, download site, documentation page, screenshot page, etc.
>
> >I would be very surprised if we dont discover we can all share many
> >components.
>
> We will have to see. So far (after 5 days), there has been no one
> willing to post any reviews! Perhaps you would like to add your
> project to the list of projects and encourage the users of your
> product to post reviews?
>
> >Is it an idealist approach ?
>
> Hopefully it is also a practical approach :-). As in all things,
> there is only one way to really find out. There is, however, a
> tradition of poor inter-project collaboration among the few
> projects. It is rather pointless to decide whose fault it is -
> the only thing to do is to not repeat that behavior. To me, that
> means "shamelessly" using/taking each others ideas/designs/code
> and encouraging others to do the same. The saddest thing would be
> free software that no one wants :-(.
>
> For example, you must have some good ideas from your Odyssy
> project - however, most people (including Thomas and I), may not
> understand your ideas well enough to want to use them. That means
> you need to try to explain what you are proposing - ideally
> within a framework that we can grasp. That is why I suggested
> that you study GEHR and OIO so that you can see how Thomas and I
> conceptualize the same problem space.
>
> Once you have a guess of how we see the world, then you may wish
> to compare your design to the GEHR and OIO's design. Even if you
> don't end up convincing Thomas or me to merge GEHR and OIO with
> Odyssy, we may incorporate some of your ideas/design into our
> projects. In return, we may be able to help you understand some
> of our great ideas :-).
>
> If you search through the openhealth-list archive at
> openhealth.com (under the term "GEHR vs. OIO"), you will see my
> efforts to clarify the good ideas in GEHR and OIO. As I mentioned
> before, Thomas' paper-in-progress is a must-read as far as I am
> concerned. If I were you, I would begin with a reasoned critique
> of his paper. I thing Odyssy and GEHR share many common goals. Of
> course, you are proposing a different solutions and I am sure
> Thomas would appreciate your critique. If you care to post the
> critique to the OIO Library (or here), then we will have a chance
> to understand your view point through your analysis of GEHR (or
> OIO if you prefer).
>
> Let's get to work :-)
>
> Andrew
> ---
> Andrew P. Ho, M.D.
> OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes
> www.TxOutcome.Org
> Assistant Clinical Professor
> Department of Psychiatry, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center
> University of California, Los Angeles
>
>
> Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora
> Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com
>
