Hi Thomas and Silje and all,
The next CKM will be released soon.
You can upload an archetype that uses TRANSLATION_DETAILS/OTHER_DETAILS
and this will be maintained and displayed in the appropriate places in CKM.
However, if we need */special/***support for any
TRANSLATION_DETAILS/OTHER_DETAILS items, e.g. a key other_contributors
with a value string that has multiple lines (one for each contributor as
a convention), that is explicitly exposed during online translation of
an archetype in CKM, the we need to agree on this very soon.
I would suggest that we either leave this as a feature for next-gen ADL
(1.5/2.0) and then do it properly as to be agreed or agree on this
other_contributors multi-linestring and convert this to multiple entries
for next-gen ADL.
ADL1.4
translations = <
["de"] = <
language = <[ISO_639-1::de]>
author = <
["name"] = <"me">
>
other_details = <
["other_contributors"] = <"First additional
contributor name, organisation, ....
Second contributor name, ....
Third contributor name, ...">
>
>
next-gen ADL:
translations = <
["de"] = <
language = <[ISO_639-1::de]>
author = <
["name"] = <"me">
>
other_contributors = <"First additional contributor
name, organisation, ....", "Second contributor name, ....", "Third
contributor name, ...">
>
Apart from this - is there any other pressing needs that need any
special support during CKM online translation and than can be expressed
with the ADL1.4 other_details fields?
Cheers
Sebastian
On 20.03.2015 14:56, Thomas Beale wrote:
>
> that actually sounds like the basis of the model of what a proper
> registry might record....
>
> - thomas
>
> On 20/03/2015 13:46, David Moner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm going to do a provocative proposal, that just came to my mind.
>>
>> Why being a translator is different from being archetype author? When
>> somebody does a translation he/she is in fact authoring the textual
>> part of the archetype. Thus, why do we have to manage it separately
>> from the authors section?
>> Moreover, how do we deal with other types of contributions that could
>> be of interest? For example the reviewers of the archetype, not just
>> listing them as "Other contributors".
>>
>> Could we simplify all this stuff and just support a "participation"
>> kind of approach for archetypes metadata? The idea would be to have
>> one single section called "Participants", with with the name,
>> organisation, mail, etc., and a coded field "Type of participation"
>> using a controlled vocabulary including for example "Main author",
>> "Contributor author", "Main translator", "Contributor translator",
>> "Reviewer", "Consulted domain expert", etc. In fact, this should be a
>> multi valued field, since nothing avoids that the same person is the
>> main author and a translator to a different language. In case that
>> new participation roles appear in the future, we only have to
>> complete the controlled vocabulary, without changing other things.
>>
>> Probably we would still need to support some specific details
>> depending on the type of participation (for example the accreditation
>> info), but this approach could simplify part of the metadata
>> management. I know that are some details to be fixed, but what do you
>> think about the general idea?
>>
>> David
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
--
*Dr. Sebastian Garde*
/Dr. sc. hum., Dipl.-Inform. Med, FACHI/
Ocean Informatics
Skype: gardeseb
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150323/25fa2330/attachment.html>
