dhis2-devs team mailing list archive

[Jason Pickering <jason.p.pickering@xxxxxxxxx>]

Abyot,
I personally find this a bit of an academic discussion. From an
implementation standpoint having concepts like Gender pre-defined seems to
make a lot of sense to me. This is sort of like saying, we should not have
pre-defined periods (which we do), and it would be up to the user to define
them (although they should be essentially self-obvious and defining them has
been proven in the field to be very painful). Having some really basic and
well accepted concepts (and I would go as far as data elements, such as
"Population") would be very useful. We cannot argue about gender and some
other concepts which are essentially universal in almost all implementations
of DHIS2 to date.  One of the big problems from an  implementation
standpoint is that when new users attempt to use DHIS, it is blank. There is
nothing there. We have tried to fill this gap a bit with documentation, but
having a set of predfined concepts (or data elements or periods or even
orgunits a la HealthMapper), would certainly not hurt. If there
are purists who want to delete them and start over, they should be more than
free to do so. However, if it eases the standardization with other systems
or whatever Bob is attempting to do (which I am sure it would), I see no
harm in it.

Nonetheless, I do not want us to get distracted by this. The real task at
hand is fixing the data element/category logic, which we know has
limitations and which implementers (such as myself) have had to struggle
with. I have been a strong critic of the business logic, while believing the
model is not far off (although I do believe having a hierarchical and
transient association  is eventually going to be necessary). Once we realize
that there is not much difference between an orgunit, and period and a data
element/category option, the better and simpler it will be for both
developers and implementers.


Respectfully,

Jason


On Sep 22, 2011 5:27 PM, "Knut Staring" <knutst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Designing to enable bootstrapping
>
> Regards, Knut (via mobile phone)
> On Sep 22, 2011 5:13 PM, "Abyot Gizaw" <abyota@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I take bootstrapping at implementation level than at design level
>>
>> 2011/9/22 Lars Helge Øverland <larshelge@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>> I think "bootstrapping" with most popular concepts make sense here. We
>>> are not really tying anyone's hands, just offering some standard
>>> options, one can always remove or add new ones.
>>>
>>> Lars
>>>