I’ve seen a tendency lately that topics that at least to me seem to be of a technical nature are posted to the clinical list. These topics often generate a lot of discussion, which drowns out much of the discussion about the clinical aspects of openEHR. I realise that a lot of discussions will be borderline technical/clinical, but I still think a lot of them would better belong in the technical or even implementers list. If you’re unsure where to post something, may I suggest having a look at the description of each of the mailing lists at https://openehr.org/community/mailinglists.
Thanks everyone, and have a great summer to those of you in the northern hemisphere!
I pick which list to send message to very carefully, trying to focus modeling methodologies and modeling tools on the clinical, and the rest on the technical.
Some issues clarified on the clinical list, have impact on tools and sometimes on the specs themselves. On those cases I try to clarify the clinical modeling aspects on this list, then raise related issues on other lists or raise JIRA issues for the SEC to review when it is spec related.
But I know there is a gray area, since each “thing” depends on other “things”. If there is any specific on my messages that doesn’t comply with some guideline, please PM to clarify.
To be fair these recent discussions may have been about clinical modelling issues but most have not been engaging with clinicians.
The description of the list is: This list is for discussions about any clinical aspect of the EHR, including clinical design of archetypes.
I’d respectfully suggest that these recent emails mostly focus on the technical discussion and, unfortunately, will potentially alienate those who are not interested in ADL representation etc.
I too would appreciate if these discussions were moved to the Technical or Implementation lists.
Perhaps the nub of this thread is about how best to engage the clinician or clinical modeller.
If we are talking about the thread titled ‘Non existing constraints: closed or open interpretation?’, ultimately I regard this as a technical question, right from the outset and framing, through to the conclusions. TBH my eyes glazed over immediately and I didn’t bother to read the rest of the thread. You’ve had one clinical modeller respond, who is also very strong technically, but he is an anomaly (of the nicest sort).
The clinical modellers who are interested in the technical aspects of openEHR DO monitor and respond to the technical and implementation lists. Even me on occasion. I think that is the better place to ask questions about modelling in the context of development and implementation and, if you specifically want modellers involved, suggest you could also cc them in the email.
We all value your huge participation and contributions to furthering the openEHR work. I certainly don’t want to discourage you, especially in getting clinical or modelling input.
Ultimately this should be a collaborative and collegial discussion about how best to connect the technical and clinical community, not one of censure or rule setting.
Although my first thought is to agree with Silje and Heather, with the remarks on the issues that should be brought to discussion in each list, sometimes it is inevitable that we, modelers, have to discuss some technical aspects, as they can impact our work,
for instance,
the way we express the formalisms.
We have to bear in mind that a collaborative governance must engage all types of openEHR stakeholders
