Hi,
I think a couple of things could be changed to make CKM more
search-friendly, but I also think we have to look carefully what we
want and where:
- The idea behind linking comments/discussions directly to an
archetype and not just using a
mailing list or the like is that we want comments for an archetype
gathered in one place so that they are in fact easier accessible than
via common search engines.
I certainly felt that a lot of discussions were repeated on the mailing
lists, because nobody could remember that the question had been asked
for that archetype already.
However, currently it is only possible to search comments for a certain
archetype and we may want to search for comments of all archetypes
(because we know what we are searching for, but not exactly for which
archetype it may have been posted).
- All new comments are already available by a news feed you just
need to subscribe to as well as on the Dashboard. Also you can select
to get email notifications on any new comment (or comments for a
specific archetype or comment for a specific thread of comments.)
There are probably tools to take a newsfeed and post the contents
somewhere for anybody who likes to do this.
However, there may be additional value to automatically post the
comments to somewhere where they are indexable from google etc. This
e.g. could be another openEHR mailing list that receives all new
comments.
- We could also make the comments available without having to log
in to CKM if people feel strongly about this.
Then only if you want to post a new comment you need to log in and
probably only
access the commenters' profiles once logged in as well.
- With regard to archetype reviews, I am not so sure if they should
be accessible without even logging in.
Neither I am sure if there is value in having them indexed by search
engines. I strongly believe that they need to be structured and
displayed in an archetype-specific way and groupable by review rounds,
directly linked to the way the archetype looked liked at that stage of
the review process, etc. to be useful. Everybody can access all reviews
in CKM (when logged in), while reviewers can choose to be anonymous
(and only reveal their identity to other members of the review team).
Certainly the CKM approach is more open than any HL7 (or the like)
process I have seen. Everybody can access it and everybody who wants to
can participate.
- With regards to archetypes, you can download all of them or a
selection of them. There are webservices to access them, and a couple
more are going to be added in the next release as discussed on the wiki
and wave. And if there is need for more, we can always add them
- When google wave is out of beta and open to everybody, we will
certainly explore how we can make use of it, integrated in CKM and/or
as a starting point for archetype development, etc.
Regards
Sebastian
Thomas Beale wrote:
I am not sure what use having search engines seeing into the CKM is. We
have robots turned off for all SVN repositories, including the one that
used to hold all the archetypes. Search engines only tell you about
things you did not already know about; whether they could report
anything coherent from CKM I am not sure, same as for all the source
code in the SVN repositories. Or are you suggesting we make all that
searchable as well (it kills performance by the way).
Google or any other search engine doesn't know how to search CKM in an
intelligent fashion....but if you go into CKM, which is fully open, you
can see everything. I am unclear on the problem.
- thomas beale
Erik Sundvall wrote:
Hi Sam!
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 18:20, Sam Heard <sam.heard@oceaninformatics.com> wrote:
Hi Erik
Can you tell me what search capabilities you want in CKM that are not there.
You can export a protégé ontology, all the archetypes and have all the
search power we have thought of from the asset management platform.
Unsearchable seems a little unfair.
If you read my CKM-search-reasoning in other related messages
carefully again you will see that I have been talking about the CKM
not being searchable via major search engines (like Google Search)
hence the wording "open public searchable space".
The problem is that the CKM content currently is "locked in" behind
passwords and a search-engine-unfriendly application structure so that
the content is not a proper part of the "web" that search engine
spiders can index. This is a fairly simple technical publishing
problem that can be solved if there is a will from the ones owning the
CKM application. A more serious meta-problem is if the
search-engine-unfriendliness is not seen as a problem by the
application owners and by the foundation using the application.
The wiki and mailinglists (via archives) do not suffer from this
searchability problem, they were built with openness in mind and are
fully searchable and any discussion regarding certain archetypes in
them etc will be found. An extra plus is that their content can also
be archived by sites like http://www.archive.org
In openEHR we are often talking about the value of capturing clinical
context in order to interpret data, as a thought-experiment try to
apply the same thinking regarding archetype development. You (and your
search queries) might want to see the context of discussion and the
review comments for archetypes, not just the final archetypes.
Best regards,
Erik Sundvall
erik.sundvall@liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733
(Mail & tel. recently changed, so please update your contact lists.)
-----Original Message-----
From: openehr-technical-bounces@chime.ucl.ac.uk [mailto:openehr-
technical-bounces@chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Erik Sundvall
Sent: 19 November 2009 09:35
To: For openEHR clinical discussions
Cc: For openEHR technical discussions
Subject: Re: openEHR community on Google Wave
Hi!
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 06:48, Heather Leslie
<heather.leslie@oceaninformatics.com> wrote:
If I have caused any confusion, I apologise. I'm just enthusiastic
and
interested to further explore the potential (or not) offered by
Google
Wave.
It is a very nice initiative Heather and there is no need to
apologise, just a need to get the discussions out in open public
searchable space (and that also goes for the currently unsearchable
CKM).
I believe that in a set of properly managed wave conversations it
might be easier to follow the discussion flow, and it might be a less
fragmented user experience than the current CKM is. If done right and
when there are more wave providers than Google (since wave uses a
truly open protocol) then we could at the same time get rid of the
current CKM vendor lock-in and extension limitations (without creating
another vendor lock in).
While these initial 'coordinating waves' are public, small groups may
go off
and use a private Wave to work on a task or project - just like they
do now
using email, skype or IM.
Yes of course some conversations (or parts of conversations) will
always be private since humans prefer to work that way sometimes. The
problem is if things are inaccessible and unsearchable even when there
is no intention to keep the discussion private.
The result should be identical - submitting the
draft archetype to CKM or contributing to the email lists or wiki.
If wave-based tools become widespread and powerful enough to do
openEHR review, voting etc., then I don't see CKM as a necessary step
in the pipeline to finally submitting archetypes/templates to simple
stable repositories. Every shift of tools along the way adds a
potential user confusion.
By the way, have you tried using mindmapping gadgets for openEHR
related development in wave, I found an open source mindmapping gadget
that even includes a voting mechanism and freemind-import facilities
at:
http://wave-samples-gallery.appspot.com/about_app?app_id=64007
See also: http://www.brucecooper.net/2009/11/mind-map-gadget-for-
google-wave.html
And since the mindmapping gadget is open source it could easily be
modified by any java/GWT developer to add features that you'd find
useful for openEHR related use :-)
Best regards,
Erik Sundvall
erik.sundvall@liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733
(Mail & tel. recently changed, so please update your contact lists.)
P.s. To add voting to suitable items (e.g. corresponding to when you
use voting in CKM) it seems like
http://wave-samples-gallery.appspot.com/about_app?app_id=23006 might
be useful. I guess a proper discussion will often solve things without
the need for voting though...
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@openehr.org
http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
|