Thoughts about federation of CKMs and the future

Tool Support CKM
1

This text is a copy from a Slack post I made in September 2019, about a possible way to make the international and local CKMs work better together in the future. I’m posting it here partly to archive it for the future before it disappears from Slack, partly to get more input.

I just had an epiphany of sorts about this problem of federation: Maybe we should rather look towards having a single CKM, which can have “Localisation domains” or similar, kind of like the existing subdomains but better.

A localisation domain should have the possibility to:

  • Have a separate URL/internet domain, for example arketyper.no
  • Have one or more languages defined, for example Norwegian (bokmål)
  • Upload its own archetypes with a separate namespace and/or ID suffix, for example no.arketyper/ID suffix “_no”.
  • Create localisations of international archetypes. Localisation would be an aspect that can be added to any international archetype, and would include owning the translations of those archetypes into the localisation domain’s languages, and running reviews in those languages.
  • With the international editors, directly convert an archetype owned by a localisation domain into an international archetype with localisation added.
  • Push the collated results of a localisation review into an international review, sort of like what we’re currently doing manually using the norwegianreview.summary account.
  • For localisation initiatives that wish to closely collaborate with the international modelling, localisation domains would replace local instances of CKM.

Thoughts?

4 Likes
2

Having thought about this a bit in the past myself, I’d have to say your analysis is excellent, and a pointer to the right direction for the future.

2 Likes
3

This topic pops up when I tried to post a topic titled “Federation of instances of CKM and other openEHR-compatible model repos?” HAHA, I also just had such an epiphany :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

It’s because of process efficiencies and coverage of the intl CKM, as two factors significantly impacting my experience of the CKM.

A kind-of similiar strategy has already taken by SCT International for convergence/cooperation between its intl edition and other national editions. For example, a SCT code originated from US could be more easily included into the intl edition without changing the SCT Code.

1 Like