Issues around UI technologies and bindings to back end

Bert Verhees wrote:

hope this clarifies


Thanks, Thomas, it clarifies why archetypes do not suffice in
application-context for data entry/presentation.
For the moment, we can live without templates (leave it to form-developers
to define where to use a specific archetype-item), or fabricate
template-definition for internal use. In initial phase, it does not have
to be very complicated.


yes, I should have said this: anyone can fabricate their own ‘templates’ for the moment. They won’t be reusable outside the local environment, but for application building that won’t matter. Only one thing matters - whatever your ‘templates’ look like, make sure they include the archetype paths / node ids (i.e. at-codes) for each data point.


for UI:s. The problem is the there is no complete template
specification.


I agree with Olof that there is a need for formal template-specification.

I think that when there is, it will be possible to exchange templates,
application forms, or even better, develop to exchangeable
application-functionality. This would cause the openehr-kernel to become a
supporting module which presents forms and stores data. But the real
application will be defined in the templates.

getting close to that, yes

Is this the road-map we are looking at? Or are the goals different?

My thoughts on a Sunday-morning:
Medical-information-application-development will be a matter of writing
templates and archetypes. This can than be done by people specialized in
writing/defining GUI's and specialized in medical applications. I remember
this to be one of the original goals of the openehr-kernel.

there will still be GUI-specific stuff to work out I think - we have to live with the fact that good GUI will always require some hand-building.

The mix needed for software development, not only medical, is that an
application-developer needs to have technical knowledge, but also
domain-knowledge. Very often this prevents developers to be as good
skilled as would be possible if they could concentrate on either.
(no flame bait intended, there are many positive exceptions)

if medical professionals have mainly been responsible for the archetypes, developers could have a fair go at templates.

Software-developers than can concentrate on writing a good kernel, writing
good tooling. They can concentrate on the technical part of an
application. For example: It would even be possible to write a OpenEHR-OS,
highly optimized for this purpose. This could, for example, be based on
the Linux-kernel which is available for this, because it is open source
and therefore modifiable.

well, that’s a nice future to think about - it just relies on a nice API being developed, published and adopted.

  • thomas beale