mlhim-owners team mailing list archive

[Roger Erens <roger.erens@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tim,

could you explain your view on the modelling process with the
currently chosen set of tools?
Is it something like:

for the reference model:
[ideas of clinicians/engineers] -> XMind + Template (aka CDD) ->
[MindMaps] -> XMindPro? -> [XML] -> EMF -> [XSD] -> OSHIPxx

for the clinical concepts:
[ideas of clinicians] -> CDD -> [MindMaps] -> Plone + Plone-product ->
[XSD] (aka CCD)

for an application, written in e.g. Python:
[CCD]s + OSHIPpy -> A new health care application, ready to conquer
the world, using XML to exchange patient data

Or is this very wrong? Well, I guess the third process is more
developing than modelling.

Something else:
Is it still possible to rename the CDD tool? (I would be willing to
help with this PITA-job). Because in my mind this sort of happens when
I see that term during reading:
"CDD? WFT? Again one of these acronyms! Or is it CCD? Count the Cs and
Ds again, really, really carefully. Oh, OK: 1 C and 2 Ds; so, what did
that stand for again? Right, Concept, err, no, Constraint...
Definition... Designer... Constraining what... Oh, right, constraining
concepts, but its starting letter was dropped... OK, now move on again
with the sentence. Uhh, restart reading the sentence..."
I guess my flow of thought would be less interrupted if the tool was
renamed CCDD, CCD-d, CCD-dsgnr, CCD-designer, CCD-workbench, or
something like that.

And, what do you think of HCKR being renamed to CCD-repository?

Of course, this is totally personal, although I'm curious if Luciana
has a gut feeling about whether other newbies entering the project --
drowning (or not?) in all those acronyms -- will pick up the ideas
faster when using other acronyms.

Thanks for all the hard work,

Cheers,

Roger

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 15:04, Tim Cook <timothywayne.cook@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I would like to get some input on this issue.
>
>
> I do not want to risk getting into any technology that limits the
> overall viability of MLHIM (therefore OSHIPxx) But of course for real
> world use, at some point choices must be made.
>
> As you all know, Marcos has taken the original schemas that I provided
> and created an EMF model.  (My use of terms/words here may not be
> precise as I study EMF).
>
> My little bit of research so far tells me that yes, we can generate XML
> Schemas from the EMF model.  Now every implementation language has
> binding capability to XML Schema.  So the reference model
> implementations in each language should be fairly straight forward.
>
> While the Eclipse EMF tools are more popular in Java land than other
> places.  The ability to work with XML Schemas seems to bridge any of
> those issues with Python, Ruby, Lua, etc.
>
> For management of something as complex and varied as MLHIM is; I believe
> it is key to have a central starting point.
>
> The question I have for all of you.  Does, Eclipse EMF appear to be a
> valid foundation for us to do the formal modeling in.  Then creating XML
> Schemas as the "reference implementation" that everyone else can work
> from?
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> --
> ***************************************************************
> Timothy Cook, MSc
> Project Lead - Multi-Level Healthcare Information Modeling
> http://www.mlhim.org
>
> LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook
> Skype ID == timothy.cook
> Academic.Edu Profile: http://uff.academia.edu/TimothyCook
>
> You may get my Public GPG key from  popular keyservers or
> from this link http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mlhim-owners
> Post to     : mlhim-owners@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mlhim-owners
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>