Cade: I appreciate your interesting comments, perhaps because my age has advanced to the stage that my medical data is of much greater importance to me. Also, I have become much more cynical about medical practitioners who share data with the BigPharma oligopoly and the inevitable consequences of well-intended attempts to make all of a patient's data available on-line so that GPs and Specialist can share a holistic view of a patient.
For my part, I am much more inclined to build by own repository of all my medical information and share it with just the practitioners I trust and select as care-providers. This is particularly true now that the clinic-based GP I start with, suggests that I find my own specialists, that he can then refer me to, since the Administrative wait times are on the order of a year for a referral. In that context, I am inclined to ask you "What are the impediments to sharing the ... cardiovascular Data ..." you have. Particularly given that you already understand fine-grained design concepts and that is should be possible to use these to anonymize a selective view of the information. Regards, Hans On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 11:18:29 PM UTC-4 Cade Roux wrote: > I wish I could share the TWs we generate for our cardiovascular Data Mart > product here. We generate the data dictionary/manual in a TW and all our > test outputs are in a few TWs organized by test groupings. It definitely > satisfies 2 and 3, as far as 1, I am still tweaking it to be more and more > attractive and useful all the time. We started off very simply because we > didn't want to commit too deeply down a path which would limit us from > retargeting our documentation to HTML or Word later. However, as we > progressed, it was more and more accepted to start using TW features more > heavily as stakeholders started to get the hang of it, and there are some > fundamental aspects of TW which we have taken advantage of to solve > traditional problems in code/document generation: > > Transclusion means that we can have parts of the TW that are manually > edited and parts that are generated and that work can go along > independently with each feeding off the other, without requiring > significant synchronization between engineering staff and informatics staff > - changes to the code/rules can be done independent of editing the TW > template file independent of the data that is going to be imported from > JSON to fill out many lookup tables and generate necessary tiddlers and > indexes. Normally with code/document generation, you have to decide > whether the template or the content is driving the design and what we've > found with TW is both are on pretty equal footing compared to past > techniques like in Excel or Word where areas have to be labeled and then > only designated labeled areas can be filled in and there really isn't > referencing back and forth. And you have to decide where longer narratives > are stored and how they get combined in the document. And you have to > decide how to handle multiple passes so that you can embed generated > content in user content inside the generated content. That is simple for > us, they are always in a tiddler, potentially itself transcluding generated > data, and it's all seamlessly handled by transclusion. > > Macros/filters mean that the document in many cases is data driven on its > own using TW features. Typically in a Word or HTML document generation, > you would have to generate the index, often our indexes are not even > generated - they are tiddler list macros on tiddlers with dedicated > transclusion points for including manual edited tiddlers in appropriate > places. Sure Word can generate a table of contents based on the heading > structure in your document. That is nothing compared to what TW does for > us because of how we tag everything in custom fields and then can have all > kinds of options for organizing and displaying indexes of the same data. > > Tiddler grain - do everything at a small meaningful grain and tag/label > data fully in custom fields. A lot of this could be done with an HTML site > generator, but TW has really saved a lot of work for us by us buying into > the TW philosophy of fine-grained tiddlers. So we use custom fields and > tags and filters and generate tiddlers appropriately tagged for every > element of our Data Mart and then they merge seamlessly with manually > created tiddlers and index tiddlers which know how to group up different > tags. > > I know there are other tools we could have looked at, but based on what we > did with TW, I am not confident that we would have achieved what we did, or > as well, or as flexibly accommodating the ongoing releases of our Data Mart > as we curate more and more data, with any other product or technique. > > Thanks, > > Cade > > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 5:13:36 PM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote: > >> I'm not clear on what exactly the problem is. >> >> What problem are we trying to solve, how will making TW appear alive >> solve it? Alive to who? And alive how? >> >> Yeah, I think I'm either over-analyzing things or things are too >> broad/unclear for me to contribute anything useful. >> >> I do look forward to seeing how this discussion thread evolves. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 5:33:46 PM UTC-3 Mat wrote: >> >>> What does "nicely designed" mean? I may find something wonderfully >>>> designed, while 99% of normal folk find the same thing awful. >>>> >>> >>> So I'm talking about appealing to the 99%. If we look at, say, the >>> "clothes design industry" we should realize how incredibly narrow our >>> tastes are if we consider that clothes really could be designed in >>> unlimited number of ways. Most of us have similar preferences about most >>> things. (Of course, you and I have our own distinguished tastes and free >>> minds... and that very belief is another thing we have in common with >>> almost all other people.) >>> >>> [...], and who cares whether it looks abandoned or not? >>>> >>> >>> Before people become full tiddlywikians, then need to decide if they >>> want to try out TW to begin with. At that stage, impressions and feelings >>> matter a lot. Things that look abandoned or outdated are generally less >>> appealing than things that look up to date and alive. I'm pretty sure >>> people are more interested in a software where it says "October 19, 2021" >>> instead of , say, "May 7, 2018". >>> >>> [...] the best thing is to continously/regularly update it. >>>> >>> >>> Of course, but that means responsibility and effort... >>> >>> >>>> An alternative/complimentary approach might involve having the wiki >>>> acting a bit like a portal, showing some dynamic content from somewhere >>>> else so it looks like the TiddlyWiki has a pulse ? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, that is a good idea. Any good examples of how this can be done? >>> >>> <:-) >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/358c1c59-4f21-4f9f-acc5-56e2d2c41064n%40googlegroups.com.
