SubjectOfInvestigation

Technical (archive)
1

Hi,

Maybe I misunderstand, I often start an email like this.

SubjectOfInvestigationGPIC has in its core two classes which are, in my opinion is one redundant and gives programmers extrawork to do.

There is IdentifiedLivingSubject, which contains the name of the subject, and the ID

And there is SubjectOfCare, which is a generalisation of SubjectOfCarePerson which is a generalisation of PatientExtendedInformation
But SubjectOfCarePerson is also a generalisation of IdentifiedLivingSubject

It would be easy to do when SubjectOfCarePerson would contain attributes which are simular in its specialisations

For me, that is the only reason why you ever create constructions like this.

What is the case,
SubjectOfCare has no attributes at all
SubjectOfCarePerson has no attributes at all

but e.g., the specialisation:
IdentifiedLivingSubject has a name- and id-attribute
PatientExtendedInformation has a name- and id-attribute
PatientStandardInformation has a name- and id-attribute

That leaves the job tot the programmer to write redundant code, which is dangerous, the same code has to be maintained on more locations, which is errorprone and inefficient.

Is there a good reason for inheritance here, if so, please explain it to me.
If (abstract) classes have no attributes at all, what is their reason for existance?

Thanks very much in advance

Kind regards
Bert Verhees

2

Dear Tom and Bert,

The QA was done primarily by Edgar in his project.

When improvements are needed I see two processes.
-1- in CEN a new version.
-2- in ISO in the work on CIC's.

In the mean time we can maintain a file with the lists of proposed and the agreed changes.

Who will maintain these lists?

Gerard
]

3

From my opinion, it would be good if someone receives the emails, and saves

them for later. I t does not seem right if I would do that, I am not involved
with the standardisation-process, I am only a user of the standard.

I already have about ten issues, which not all may be valid, I can
misunderstand things, and it is not easy to find someone to discuss things
with

Better would be if there was a webinterface where people can report their
found issues.
I have very good experiences with Bugzilla
Bugzilla also offers a interface to discuss the issues, offline over email,
and online in the interface, and it sends emails to involved persons if
information to an issue has changed

An example from Bugzilla in use is:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/

A large list of companies worldwide use Bugzilla
http://www.bugzilla.org/installation-list/

and it is free

Bert Verhees

4

Bert,

Thanks, and I agree that a forum should be established which should include the Swedes who are also active in this area.

I looks to me on first sight that Bugzilla is designed for use under Unix/Linux which I do not run. However, I am currently setting up a server under Windows Server 2003 and am installing SharePoint. I could set up a forum there which would be accessed over the WEB. This facility would permit documents to be downloaded/uploaded and could be a repository of designs, updates, findings and other documentation. In addition I could easiliy set up a Yahoo Group for exchange of emails.

Any thoughts/suggestions?

Seems fine to me, although not perfect, but, given not too much time, not too many people for doing it, it seems to me good enough.
Except from the yahoo-mailinglist which requires registration, and if one does not fill in the web forms well, one is registered also at companies which 'can do related offers' etc.
But later, a own mailinglsit on a non-commercial server could be considered.
For beginning this opportunity is just what we need.

Thanks for bothering, I hope it will make the standard much better.

Except from exchanging ideas about the standard itself, and what could be wrong about it, it could also be used for people to help understand the standard (like me ;-), explain why choices have been made, setting up FAQ's, example code, documentation library.....

Oh,oh I am running to fast again, let's start with an infrastructure to address issues.

kind regards
Bert Verhees

5

Tim Cook wrote:

This post doesn't directly affect me but I thought the information below
might help.

I looks to me on first sight that Bugzilla is designed for use under Unix/Linux which I do not run.
     
There is a Bugzilla distribution for Windows 2000
http://www.parrus.com/project/bugzilla.htm

Thinking about it, Bugzilla is written in Perl and works with MySQL, which both exists for Windows, also for Apache is a Windows-version.
There is some information about it here: http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/2.18/html/os-specific.html#os-win32
It says that it does not run out of the box, setting up a linux-box might be easier.

And on the other hand, if someone is setting up a Sharepoint-environment which can also serve the needs, we should be grateful for that.
But we have to be careful, as Tim Cook writes, it is often that Microsoft-software is not very friendly for browsers and Operating Systems which do not come from their house.

So it should be tested if Sharepoint can deliver a web that is conform the w3-standard, which would look good, for a service committed in improving a standard.

kind regards
Bert Verhees

There is a company in the Netherlands which delivers a Bugzilla-service: http://www.firstbase.nl/
Click on "ASP-diensten". I don't know about prices, I guess for a organisation as CEN or NEN, it would be peanuts. From that company I bought CVS-service about a year ago, which was about 50 Euro every month. And, surely there will be more companies offering this service. It takes no work at all, just a few telephone-calls. For a well paid (wo)man bungle around for a day (or two) could buy ten months of Bugzilla at a commercial ASP-provider

(the fact is that in the company where I work the use of IE only is permitted in special cases, Outlook and Microsoft Office are prohibited, and the preferred workstations run on Linux)