On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 12:59:38PM +1100, Tim Churches wrote: > Speaking of Python, you might be interested in the GNUmed project, which > also targets primary care settings, and the GNUmed people are very > interested in all sorts of architectural and design issues. Agree. I'm reading this thread with interest. I have been interested in the Concept Dictionary approach ever since I learned about OpenMRS a year ago or so. There's a strong camp opposed to EAV-only schemata. I have a nagging feeling, however, that having a Concept Dictionary approach can be of great value where it fits (as a poor-mans export system, perhaps ?). I have read most of the OpenMRS docs but haven't yet been struck by lightning going "Ah yes ! That's how I'd want to use that in GNUmed !!". As I said, I do think I am missing out on something very elegant and would like to be educated on that. It's the same feeling I have that once I eventually get around to implementing forms (as in paper) support I will turn to studying NetEpi on that.
> GNUmed uses > a cross-platform GUI (wxWindows), rather than a Web interface, though. Yes. We have a proof-of-concept web frontend, too, which uses the same (Pythonic) middleware. And we have a XML-RPC interface for remote-controlling the wxPython client (say, from legacy applications - which we already do). > But the design issues are similar. Yes. Re MPI/COAS/PIDS in this thread: My argument for not using them (today!) in GNUmed is simply that I lack the man-power (and, perhaps, intellectual prowess). However, I do think that the current GNUmed infrastructure has a limited timespan and that issues for federation will come into play at some point. At which point I will turn to FEBRL and PIDS as the first step for using an (if local) MPI. Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
