# proposal for gathering community knowledge **Category:** [Technical (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/technical-archive/156) **Created:** 2005-01-30 16:32 UTC **Views:** 5 **Replies:** 2 **URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/proposal-for-gathering-community-knowledge/14442 --- ## Post #1 by @thomas.beale Dear all, one thing that is always a concern in any community is how to retain knowledge and ideas generated by debate and discussion\. I have spent some years in the community informatics arena, and this is a well\-known problem\. What it comes down to is this\. Interesting, sometimes long discussions occur about topics like "what is an episode", "age", "confidentiality" and so on\. Many good points are made, and there may even be a consensus view reached due to the discussion\. Then a new discussion occurs\. What is lacking is a summary/prĂ©cis of the material \- a synthesis if you like\. I suspect that most discussions which generate 50 pages of email could be summarised in about 2 A4 pages\. Now, there are various technological attempts to help with this sort of process, such as Wiki and other online document modification systems\. However, I have never been convinced that the best way still isn't to get a good human brain on the job, to produce a summary the old\-fashioned way \- by reading and thinking\! The kind of document we are looking for is something ranging from an FAQ entry, to up to say 5 pages of detailed description; it would then be added to the online knowledge pages of the community\. My proposal is therefore that for each substantive discussion on a topic of interest, that an editor be found to produce a simple textual summary of the problem, arguments, and conclusions \(or lack thereof; and reasons for that\) which could then be incorporated into the openEHR website\. Appropriate attribution for the editor and discussants would of course be included\. This growing knowledge\-bank would become an invaluable resource\. Another kind of information we often get from clinicians \(and technical people\) is "use\-cases" or "scenarios" \- a description of how some process really works in their experience\. Note that there might not be a 1:1 relationship between a mailing list thread and a knowledge page \- there are pearls of wisdom all over the place\. However, a lot of raw material could I think could be turned into a decent 2\-pager with a only couple of hours' work\. In concrete terms, here is how it could work: \- someone self\-nominates as an editor of a topic for a knowledge or use\-case page; it might be an expert in the subject, or a complete generalist who happens to be good at synthesising expert debate into expert knowledge \- they would generate a first draft, which would be put on a drafts section of the knowledge pages or use cases area of the website \(doesn't exist yet\) \- they would solicit comment and rework as necessary \- the final version would be posted in the relevant part of the website Of course, nothing is ever "final" \- the idea is to make later debate and thinking more efficient, as well as to capture domain thinking in a form that can be used by implementors\. No heavy process would be imposed \- anyone could submit a first draft and stop there if they wish\. However, the editor would be encouraged to take the process through, from start to delivery; openEHR will just handle the details of putting the information on the website\. The first step I suggest would be to generate a list of possible topics for knowledge pages, use cases or other FAQ material \- by going through the discussion archives, which are available online in thread\- and date\-indexed form\. Perhaps 10 topics would do initially\. Other sources of thought like hallway discussions and standards meetings arguments should also be considered\. Any takers? \- thomas beale --- ## Post #2 by @USM_Bish > Thomas, just noted that this nice suggestion of your has not evoked a response so far \.\.\. opening the batting here ;\-\) > What it comes down to is this\. Interesting, sometimes long > discussions occur about topics like "what is an episode", > "age", "confidentiality" and so on\. Many good points are made, > and there may even be a consensus view reached due to the > discussion\. Then a new discussion occurs\. What is lacking is a > summary/pr?cis of the material \- a synthesis if you like\. I > suspect that most discussions which generate 50 pages of email > could be summarised in about 2 A4 pages\. Now, there are various > technological attempts to help with this sort of process, such > as Wiki and other online document modification systems\. > However, I have never been convinced that the best way still > isn't to get a good human brain on the job, to produce a > summary the old\-fashioned way \- by reading and thinking\! The > kind of document we are looking for is something ranging from > an FAQ entry, to up to say 5 pages of detailed description; it > would then be added to the online knowledge pages of the > community\. > \[rest snipped\] > o The proposal of summarising important discussions is nice\. It   is also quite unique\. o Implementation would be a hurdle, because of the following :\-   a\) You need the co\-ordinating agency first, and then the core      group needs to set the ball rolling \.\.\.   b\) Voluntary effort always works for intellctually stimulating      things\. IOW, the satisfaction to effort ratio would have to      be high\. In this type of thing, with smaller expected ratios      voluntary jobs would have to be done military style: "One      must be detailed to volunteer" ;\-\)   c\) Need a proper flow chart/ UML of the action plan ;\-\) o I can help in the Medical portions\. I am a medical graduate of   1976 vintage, with a Diploma in Aerospace Medicine and MD\.I am   also an unqualified programmer/ IT man of sorts, with initial   forays into programming since CP/M days, more or less self   taught, having learnt tits and bits from works of 'gurus' like   Knuth and Wirth\. OOP is a oops situation for me but I am quite   okay at scripting \(shell, perl, php\) and K&R C \(programmed in   pascal style\) \! I am totally ANTI\-M$, and on Linux/ \*BSD since   1995\. o If above QRs fit your bill, count me as an extra hand in for   medical portions only \.\.\. Cheers Dr USM Bish Bangalore --- ## Post #3 by @thomas.beale USM Bish wrote: > \[rest snipped\] > > o The proposal of summarising important discussions is nice\. It > is also quite unique\. > > o Implementation would be a hurdle, because of the following :\- > > a\) You need the co\-ordinating agency first, and then the core >     group needs to set the ball rolling \.\.\. > > b\) Voluntary effort always works for intellctually stimulating >     things\. IOW, the satisfaction to effort ratio would have to >     be high\. In this type of thing, with smaller expected ratios >     voluntary jobs would have to be done military style: "One >     must be detailed to volunteer" ;\-\) > I hope there would be satisfaction from having produced a nice readable article \(let's call it that for now\) which will be read by many others later on\. Particularly if we index and present all the articles well\. > c\) Need a proper flow chart/ UML of the action plan ;\-\) > I think this is a good idea, although I often get flak for suggesting such things \- too much process for some people\. > o I can help in the Medical portions\. I am a medical graduate of > 1976 vintage, with a Diploma in Aerospace Medicine and MD\.I am also an unqualified programmer/ IT man of sorts, with initial forays into programming since CP/M days, more or less self > taught, having learnt tits and bits from works of 'gurus' like Knuth and Wirth\. OOP is a oops situation for me but I am quite > okay at scripting \(shell, perl, php\) and K&R C \(programmed in > pascal style\) \! I am totally ANTI\-M$, and on Linux/ \*BSD since > 1995\. > You are eminently qualified obviously\. I am wondering if the best approach for this "editor" job is to get a sort of disinterested editor \(who is reasonable at dissertation however\) to collate existing discussion material into an article \- a bit like a journalist or popular science writer \- rather than an expert to write an article which might be more like an academic paper extolling one point of view, but perhaps not representing the discussion adequately\. At least these two styles or writing are well\-recognised\. Perhaps as an experiment, we can just use this current topic of "age"\. Nathan Lea at CHIME at UCL has offered to have a go at editing something \- he is an excellent writer & researcher, but not a doctor \- this will mean he will use pieces of what you and other clinical people have said in various posts \(Sam has another nice summary a few articles earlier\)\. My suggestion is to try an experiment \- let's just see if we as a group can produce: \- an article summarising the "age" discussion\. Needs decent headings to be thought up; can;t be too long; should cover all informed opinions found in posts \- a process or flowchart for doing this habitually Reactions? \- thomas beale --- **Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/proposal-for-gathering-community-knowledge/14442 **Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/proposal-for-gathering-community-knowledge/14442