mlhim-owners team mailing list archive

[Timothy Cook <timothywayne.cook@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Luciana,

Thanks for the great discussion points.  I did not CC the bug report because
this email has several different issues.  They should be broken up once the
discussion is complete.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Luciana Tricai Cavalini <lutricav@xxxxxxxxx
> wrote:

>
> That makes the whole CDD from this point on to be painted in bold and
> circled with a red rectangle. It is visually confusing.
>

Okay.


>
> There is also a need for an floating Ontology Entry on the Ontology
> sheet, in order to organize the entry of diverse names, lookup tables,
> ontologies etc.
>

Hmmm, originally we had "just" an OntologyEntry class.  Is this what you are
proposing we go back to using?


>
> My suggestion is for us to make a deal that what's CDD 2.1 in
> development will be called CDD 2.0 final and uploaded as a zip file.


I don't understand why you wouldn't just want to make the current suggested
changes and publish 2.1?
Actually the version in the trunk
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~cdd-dev/cdd/trunk/files is 2.0.1
This is the legitimate way to manage releases and keeps the history of
previous development attempts.


> I
> know that that may make some of us uncomfortable, because it sounds like
> cheating, but IMO we are doing less harm doing that than having to edit
> the Definition "value" to take off the bold and the red circle, and
> copying and pasting the floating Ontology Entry from the CDD 2.1
> everytime that we need to build a CCD. I think we should take the
> opportunity when the community is small and everybody knows that all of
> us have good intentions, in order to make those minor adjustments that
> can save us a lot of unnecessary extra work.
>

Okay, but I still do not understand why mess with the history of
development?  Also, remember that the CDD must be driven by the schema
reference model.  Of course originally it wasn't because we were in initial
design stages.  But it is very important that the schemas are edited first
so that each software reference implementation matches the schemas and CDD.
Otherwise it is going to become impossible to manage. Since the current
version of the CDD is 2.0.1 and the last released version of the schemas is
2.0.2 then it makes it easy  to update the schemas.  Then release 2.0.3 and
then make the changes to the CDD and release the next one as 2.0.3 also.


> I tried to model the Person CCD, following the related demographic
> archetype, and I don't know how to insert the slot for Person Name.
> Because the MLHIM Entity package doesn't have a class for Party
> Identity. Does is go directly on the "name" attribute of the Person class?
>

Notice that a Slot is a descendant of Item (just like Cluster and Element).
The Person class needs another attribute for that Slot.  The 'name'
attribute is inherited from Locatable and has a very different meaning.
There is already an identifiers attribute for DvIdentifiers.  Would it be
confusing to use 'personal_name' for the new attribute?



>
> And, from my point of view as a "domain expert", not a RM expert (which
> means: not an expert), I don't understand why "date of birth" is an
> attribute of the Person class instead of being a concept that we can
> model like any other one in a CCD.


Mmmm, because it seemed correct to me at the time. :)  So I am open to
suggestions so we can change the schemas and move on.



> Same thing to the taxonomic
> attributes for the Non-Human class. What if the science changes?
>
>
Again I am open to suggestions.  Maybe just one attribute like species that
takes a Slot and then model whatever is required to fully describe the
non-human?  Note that there is already a bug report requiring a new
attribute on Slot for allowed_ccds.  So that will be added at the same time
these other changes are made.


> In my modest opinion, it is necessary to keep MLHIM future and
> culture-proof.
>
>
That is a foundational concept of MLHIM.


> There is more to ask, but those things are essential in order to have
> demographic CCDs starting to be developed.
>
>
Great!  Waiting for feedback.

Cheers,
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