thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com
Fri Mar 20 09:56:12 EDT 2015
that actually sounds like the basis of the model of what a proper
registry might record....
On 20/03/2015 13:46, David Moner wrote:
> I'm going to do a provocative proposal, that just came to my mind.
> Why being a translator is different from being archetype author? When
> somebody does a translation he/she is in fact authoring the textual
> part of the archetype. Thus, why do we have to manage it separately
> from the authors section?
> Moreover, how do we deal with other types of contributions that could
> be of interest? For example the reviewers of the archetype, not just
> listing them as "Other contributors".
> Could we simplify all this stuff and just support a "participation"
> kind of approach for archetypes metadata? The idea would be to have
> one single section called "Participants", with with the name,
> organisation, mail, etc., and a coded field "Type of participation"
> using a controlled vocabulary including for example "Main author",
> "Contributor author", "Main translator", "Contributor translator",
> "Reviewer", "Consulted domain expert", etc. In fact, this should be a
> multi valued field, since nothing avoids that the same person is the
> main author and a translator to a different language. In case that new
> participation roles appear in the future, we only have to complete the
> controlled vocabulary, without changing other things.
> Probably we would still need to support some specific details
> depending on the type of participation (for example the accreditation
> info), but this approach could simplify part of the metadata
> management. I know that are some details to be fixed, but what do you
> think about the general idea?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openEHR-clinical