Hi Erik Can you tell me what search capabilities you want in CKM that are not there. You can export a prot?g? ontology, all the archetypes and have all the search power we have thought of from the asset management platform. Unsearchable seems a little unfair. Cheers, Sam
> -----Original Message----- > From: openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk [mailto:openehr- > technical-bounces at 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 at 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 at 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 at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
