Christmas cleaning of the openEHR wiki...

Implementers (archive)
1

Hi everyone,

Sorry for the crossposting, but I thought this would concern everyone.

I believe the openEHR wiki is an important documentation tool that has probably been a bit neglected(?). The default Confluence theme isn’t super pretty, and the site is difficult to navigate, in my opinion because of the large number of spaces and the lack of a proper front page for the site as a whole.

I’d like to suggest reducing the number of spaces by removing/merging/archiving the spaces that are empty and/or abandoned. Those are:

Effectively empty:

Apparently abandoned:

I suggest the empty spaces are deleted, and the abandoned ones are archived.

This will leave us with:

…which in my opinion is a much more manageable selection of spaces.

I’m not sure what to do about the look of the page though. Maybe making a simple front page for the entire wiki with links and short descriptions about each space would solve a lot for now?

Thoughts?

Kind regards,
Silje Ljosland Bakke

Information Architect, RN

Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes
Nasjonal IKT HF, Norway

Tel. +47 40203298

Web: http://arketyper.no / Twitter: @arketyper_no

2

Go for it. I trust you. A spruce up is a good start.

Ian

3
  • thomas
4

Hi everyone,

I’d love to see a tidy up and update of all this material.

I suggest that we need an area for each of the Foundation programs, which should be the responsibility of the programs themselves to manage and maintain content.

This would simplify at least the initial navigation from a home page and align with the rest of the foundation’s organisation.

As other areas are identified as required, then we need to have a clearly responsible person or team who is the coordinator.

Cheers

Heather

5

Picking this up again half a year later…

I’ve archived the following spaces, since there seemed to be a consensus that they weren’t used. This is easily reversible:

  * Healthcare
  * Demonstration Space
  * Education
  * Ontologies
  * Website

Thomas, have you had a chance to look at and/or move the stuff in the following spaces?

although the CIMI and Terminology spaces are not added to in recent times, they are both regularly viewed for content, including by outside agencies (including US VA and HL7).

I'd rather keep the Ontologies space alive as well, it is read quite often.

I also suspect Education is going to start being used soon (including by me :wink:

  * CIMI
  * Terminology

For the rest of you, does anyone care if the following spaces are archived?

  * Projects (https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/projects)

this is historical info, and I think can be archived.

*

  * Zz openEHR Community (https://openehr.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/oecom)

I guess this can be archived, but what happens the next time people want to discuss and record ideas about openEHR Community functioning :wink:

*

Regarding the CQ space: Nobody has asked a question in two years in any of the spaces. Do we need to keep the Questions functionality at all?

I don't really know how to interpret the lack of use - I think people with questions do not think to go to the openEHR website and find the Questions link, which used to be on the home page. Maybe we should put it back?

- thomas

6

My personal view is that it is better to have slightly more spaces each with clear scope, even if some have not much content, rather than trying to push all content into a few spaces with larger amounts of content. To me it seems obvious what kinds of things I might find in ‘ontology’ and ‘education’, whereas if I know there are some articles on these areas, but they are buried in e..g the ‘specifications’ space, it’s going to be a matter of trying to search for them with various keys.

I fixed the Resources space a little bit, but it seems to me there is a fair bit of content like FAQs that people may well access.

these are just my views, and others may have better ideas…!

  • thomas
7

In response to
“The Ontologies space has a single page with a few attachments, of which nothing has been changed since 2012. Does this really warrant a separate space? Could this page be moved to a different space?”

I think Ontologies could be a subsection of terminologies, I would not advocate for hgaving a separate space.

Best!
Luis