the current ‘Who is using it’ menu uption under ‘Resources’ has the following sub-items
Who is using it
openEHR - commercial- openEHR - governments- openEHR - academic- GeHR Australia- GEHR + CEN- GEHR (original)- Related Projects
In the interests of clarity, being more up to date, and also being able to handle a new group of ‘who’s using it’ - non-profits - I propose the following:
Are we clear what the inclusion and exclusion criteria for “it” is?
We used, a long time ago, to list and link to projects and demonstrators that aligned with our mission even if they did not adopt the openEHR reference model.
Are we clear what the inclusion and exclusion criteria for "it" is?
well I think it has to be that "it" is "openEHR" - this is the
openEHR.org website after all. All of the GEHR projects are historical
now, and it seems to me to be more useful to website visitors that the
question of who is using openEHR (that's what they want to know) is as
clearly displayed on the website as possible.
We could change the menu title to "Who is using openEHR" if you like - I
don't mind.
openEHR has a large number of specifications. Not every group that
works with our resources uses all of them, in full.
If this page/site is to be fair, we first need to agree why we are now
including this section (marketing of them, marketing of the openEHR
brand, informative source of other pioneers in the field, peer
awareness, as educational resources etc. )
Then we can decide what parts of openEHR need to have been used and to
what extent in order for a project to be included.
We should also have an editorial policy so that content per project is
transparently fair, and meets our agreed purposes.
I would suggest that the purpose of the “Who is using it” part of the website is to inform visitors to the website who is using openEHR, in what capacity and what for. Visitors want to know things like:
how widespread is openEHR (any kind of use qualifies here)
does it have any academic activity behind it (the universities page)
are governments interested? (obvious question, since openEHR is in the realm of standards)
has it been commercialised (if yes, thats an indicator that it is quite stable, good enough quality etc)
I think that the criteria for inclusion of a particular organisation will vary depending on the type. In the government section, we are often talking about anything form ‘investigation’ to ‘official adoption’. For companies on the other hand, they need to be using some part of the specifications. In the future, when we get into conformance, we can indicate this properly, but it is early days yet.
At the moment it seems sensible to me just to have a fairly descriptive entry for each organisation, and to keep it as up to date as possible (hence the dates on the statuses).
So, from what you say, I infer you are suggesting that this section of the site primarily serves to promote our own branding image rather than the other purposes I mentioned. In which case, the inclusion criteria and editorial content criteria would be marketing ones.
So, from what you say, I infer you are suggesting that this section of the
site primarily serves to promote our own branding image rather than the
other purposes I mentioned. In which case, the inclusion criteria and
editorial content criteria would be marketing ones.
Is this the consensus view?
I don't know about consensus, but I do believe that presently openEHR
surely could use some more "marketing" especially when you have a look
at the "marketing" of some competitors.
It might be a good idea to already now add a section "Certified
systems" under the who's using it menu to clarify that certification
has not begun, but is planned.
It's certainly true that we are not as yet providing a 'certified
supplier directory' or anything like that, but as you say Erik, starting
early may encourage some suppliers.
I still would like to arrange the current menu structure in a more
logical and what I think is a clearer way. How do people feel about my
original proposal? (Later modifications would still be needed for a
certfication directory, but I am not sure we need to solve this problem
right now.).
It might be time to have a set of test archetypes with the errors that should be reported by an ADL or AOM.xml parser. We could then certify parsers by release of ADL/AOM. I think it is probably time for that given we have Ruby, Java, Eiffel, Python on board.
I think it would be good to have an Academic page that linked to projects that are closely aligned describing what aspects they are researching and what they hope to contribute to the openEHR mission. The areas of research that I think really stand out at the moment are:
How to organise an ontology of archetypes to allow inferencing - and the relationship to SNOMED (benefits of aligning the descriptive model and the information model)
producing CEN extracts from openEHR data and dealing with the unique identifiers.
managing workflow in a distributed environment using the Instruction and Action classes and creating an instruction index
Notification from openEHR repositories - triggers, and how events are handled.
There will be a huge list - but if people doing work in areas that are fundamental to our collective direction, then it will be good to be able to have a solid reference. It may be best to do it as Wiki pages so people can put up their own work.
I can change it back very easily, let me know your impressions. This
change doesn't answer Dipak's questions really, my goal here is just
trying to make the resources menu easier to navigate.
I don't have a problem with the re-organisation - seems to work well for me.
But the usability of the menu is confusing - having a L menu R aligned,
and then submenus L aligned works against common patterns and my natural
tendencies.
