Setting up a common publication/resource library for openEHR
Hi Ian, yes I was pointing out to Zotero because I have been using it since a year now and every time I use it my admiration grows. I do not use such strong expressions to many software - including some openEHR tools ;) Sebastian yes I think we should only store meta-data about citations publicly with URL's to full text. Then the people who has access (through their institution or personal account) can also download it with a single click. I checked the ZOtero site more carefully after I sent my message and found out that this is indeed provided by ZOtero freely - that is free hosting of meta-data and group access. A quick experiment: http://www.zotero.org/groups/openehr/items For those that are interested please contact me offline and I'll provide you with instructions. Cheers, -koray From: openehr-technical-bounces at chime.ucl.ac.uk [mailto:openehr-technical-boun...@chime.ucl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Ian McNicoll Sent: Monday, 15 February 2010 10:00 p.m. To: For openEHR technical discussions Cc: For openEHR clinical discussions; For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: Setting up a common publication/resource library for openEHR I would definitely recommend Zotero - this is what I use to store and format the references used in CKM. Mendeley looks very interesting, and perhaps better suited for joint reference libraries, but they do recognise that it is not as fully-featured as Zotero. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com<mailto:ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com> ian at mcmi.co.uk<mailto:ian at mcmi.co.uk> Clinical Analyst Ocean Informatics openEHR Archetype Editorial Group Member BCS Primary Health Care SG Group www.phcsg.org<http://www.phcsg.org> / BCS Health Scotland On 15 February 2010 08:08, Sebastian Garde mailto:sebastian.garde at oceaninformatics.com>> wrote: Hi Koray, did you have a look at Mendeley http://www.mendeley.com/ ? I haven't checked it out yet in detail yet, but it looks promising. They have sufficient clout to make it happen (they are the skype people) Some of the papers unfortunately cannot be made available on the openEHR website due to copyright limitations - depends on the journal (and sometimes the time passed since publication) Cheers Sebastian Koray Atalag wrote: Hi All, Whenever I start with a paper, report or presentation I find myself doing the same literature search and environment scan...And can only find the ones that I can or allowed to access. I am pretty sure this is the case for many of you out there. The current publications page on openEHR Website is quite limited and not frequently updated. What about creating a wiki page or a common bookmarking system? If there is enough enthusiasm (if any), I also suggest that we look at the Zotero Open Source project. It is extraordinary (believe me!) high quality, works as a plug-in to Firefox which is FOSS and a much better form of End Note. It is possible to create a repository (only-meta data with links to full-text; requires WebDAV) that we all can share and update. Look: www.zotero.org<http://www.zotero.org> So I am willing to start it if your voice is strong enough ;) Cheers, -koray ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-technical at openehr.org> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100216/014cae72/attachment.html>
Clarified semantics of CONTRIBUTION.audit.change_type
Hi The issue is that AUDIT_DETAILS is used for commit and for individual items. The vocabulary is designed for revision of COMPOSITIONS and not really for ATTESTATION (when there is no change) or CONTRIBUTION which may have multiple COMPOSITIONS. You approach seems fine but it does show that multiple composition changes in a single contribution has not been a feature of systems to this point. 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: Monday, 15 February 2010 9:40 PM > To: For openEHR technical discussions > Subject: Clarified semantics of CONTRIBUTION.audit.change_type > > Hi! > > I just want to share a (to me) clarifying implementation discussion to > the list so that it does not get lost in cyberspace :-) > > I wondered if e.g. the contribution 1 in fig 25 on > http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/html/architecture/overview/Output > /versioning.html#1126708 > really was possible to record as single contribution or if it needed > two contributions (with identical timestamps) but different > AUDIT_DETAILS.change_type (one for creation and one for modification). > I had a chat (attached below) with Tom Beale regarding this. > > I had somehow gotten the impression that all AUDIT_DETAILs of > versioned objects belonging to a single contribution should be > identical. This is not the case, instead e.g. the > VERSION.commit_audit.change_type can be different for the different > objects within the same contribution. > > The remaining question is then what type to select for > CONTRIBUTION.audit.change_type when the related > VERSION.commit_audit.change_type attributes are mixed in a > situation like in fig 25. It seems that the semantics of > CONTRIBUTION.audit.change_type is not crystal clear and needs to be > clarified in the specs. In the mean time our implementation will set > CONTRIBUTION.audit.change_type to "unknown" for mixed stuff and set it > to "deleted" only if all changes of the commit are deletions (and > creation if all are creations etc). Any comments regarding this > solution? > > 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.) > > - - - > > Shortened and somewhat spelling-corrected chat between Erik Sundvall > and Thomas Beale 15:th of February 2010: > > ES: Are the contributions 1 & 3 in fig 25 on > http://www.openehr.org/releases/1.0.2/html/architecture/overview/Output > /versioning.html#1126708 > really possible to record as a single contribution or do they need two > contributions (with identical timestamps) but different > AUDIT_DETAILS.change_type (one for creation and one for modification)? > > TB: the implication in that diagram is that CIx and CIy happened at > difrerent times, for example CIx is due to a test result being added > to the EHR and CIy is the next patient encounter where the physician > modifies the plan (CId), the medications (CIb) and also there is the > encounter note itself (CIy) > sorry - just realised you said 1 & 3 > but the principle is the same > > ES: I mean within contrib 1: CIw and CIa' are in the same contrib > ...but are of different types. > > TB: yes > CIw is an encounter note COMPOSITION > CIa' is something like a problem list COMPOSITION > > ES: Yes I understand that part already :) > AUDIT_DETAILS.change_type perhaps instead should be > VERSION.change_type > > TB: well VERSION and AUDIT_DETAILS is 1:1 > (apart from additional attestations which might occur) > > ES: Do you mean that the AUDIT_DETAILS can be different for different > VERSIONs in the same contrib? > > TB: sure > every VERSION has its own AUDIT_DETAILS > AUDIT_DETAILS is not any kind of shared object > http://www.openehr.org/uml/release- > 1.0.1/Browsable/_9_0_76d0249_1109326589721_134411_997Report.html > > ES: I thought it was supposed to have exactly equal content for all > versions changed in a contribution. > So what is the change_type on CONTRIBUTION.audit for a "mixed" > contrib? > > TB: just something like 'change' > or 'update' > > ES: (I meant CONTRIBUTION.audit.change_type) > > TB: yes > > ES: so if we do both creation and modification in the contrib we'll > arbitrary pick one of them? > > TB: there is not 100% clean way to map say 3 individual different > types of change (say and addition, a modification and an error > correction) to anything more specific on the CONTRIBUTION > well the meaning should be taken to be: what was the change to the > EHR as a whole? > it is usually either a creation (only new content), modification > (mixed changes) or could be a deletion > this attribute on the CONTRIBUTION audit trail is not that important > it is just like in SVN or any other VC system > in a way, all change sets are just 'modifications' > but it could be useful is a
