Re: Belated request for module ids -- provider role

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Friedman, Roger (CDC/CGH/DGHA) (CTR) Friedman, Roger (CDC/CGH/DGHA) (CTR)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Belated request for module ids -- provider role

If you compare Mark's Provider Role implementation with Daniel's Organizational Role proposal, there are some notable differences:
(1) Organizational role is many to one with person, while Provider Role is one to one with provider
(2) Organizational role is associated with a location as well as a person.
Unless the functions of the two Role formulations are very different, I think we ought to have a common understanding about these issues.

Also, I'd like to hear others' opinions on a module modifying a core object.  I think the appropriate thing to do would be to subclass the core object.  Of course, if you do subclass a core object with attributes, you are gaining very little on just having an attribute.  Maybe if it were modeled as table-per-concrete-subclass rather than our more typical table-per-superclass-plus-concrete-subclass you might get the same performance benefits as extending the table.

I think the question of whether Roles supervise Roles (with or without consideration of Location) or Persons/Providers supervise Persons/Providers has multiple possible answers.

I know that Mark was facing a deadline and had to make choices, but maybe we will have to wait for v.2 to have a common solution.  I look forward to Thursday's presentation.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mark Goodrich
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 11:29 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [OPENMRS-DEV] Belated request for module ids

To add on to that, I can get a module id of providermanagement blessed for the Provider Management module?  This module adds a new object, Provider Role, which is linked to a Provider via a column it adds to the Provider table.  A Provider Role can be associated with Provider Attributes, Relationship Types (to specify different types of supported Provider/Patient relationships), and other Provider Roles (to define allowed Supervisor/Supervisee relationships between Provider Roles).  The module provides an API and UI to manage providers and provider relationships.  The module is not yet complete, but I will be doing a work-in-progress demo on the Developers's Call next Thursday.

Mark






________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Darius Jazayeri [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 6:56 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [OPENMRS-DEV] Belated request for module ids

Hi Code, (copying Dev)

I have created the following modules, and deployed them to our maven repo, and to the module repository:

 *   uiframework (the UI framework formerly known as 2.x)
 *   uilibrary (standard widgets built on uiframework)
 *   appframework (the idea of "app" buttons on your homepage that can be enabled per user and role)

I didn't email [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> at the time because I put the code in my github account, but it just occurred to me that since I've deployed these to maven and the module repo, I really should have requested the module id.

So, can I please get those retroactively blessed? :-)

Our documentation about this is currently lacking. In a quick search the only reference I found to emailing [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> is on this page: https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/UwAJ and it's specifically talking about access to the svn repo.

Obviously I should be allowed to put my code at github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework<http://github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework> without asking permission. But I should need to ask permission to take a module id in the maven and module repos. Do we want to just rephrase our documentation to say you need to ask [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> to claim a module id in the OpenMRS repos? Or do want to consider something else?

-Darius

PS- working with git and github is wonderful. Like playing in cotton candy clouds with sunshine and rainbows. The combination of Eclipse+git+maven works a lot better than with svn, for not having to worry about annoying eclipse plugin and connector versions. The workflow is more complicated, but I mostly haven't had to deal with that yet.
________________________________
Click here to unsubscribe<mailto:[hidden email]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l> from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list

_________________________________________

To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [hidden email] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the  body (not the subject) of your e-mail.

[mailto:[hidden email]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]

_________________________________________

To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [hidden email] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the  body (not the subject) of your e-mail.

[mailto:[hidden email]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]
Burke Mamlin Burke Mamlin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Belated request for module ids -- provider role

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Friedman, Roger (CDC/CGH/DGHA) (CTR) <[hidden email]> wrote:
If you compare Mark's Provider Role implementation with Daniel's Organizational Role proposal, there are some notable differences:
(1) Organizational role is many to one with person, while Provider Role is one to one with provider
(2) Organizational role is associated with a location as well as a person.
Unless the functions of the two Role formulations are very different, I think we ought to have a common understanding about these issues.

Since provider is many-to-one with person, then these are the same, right?  Both approach organizational role(s) as many-to-one to person.
 
I think the question of whether Roles supervise Roles (with or without consideration of Location) or Persons/Providers supervise Persons/Providers has multiple possible answers.

Agreed.  Managing the hierarchy of organizational roles is out of scope for an EMR.  Sounds like a perfect opportunity for Human Resource (HR) modules to flourish.

-Burke
 

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mark Goodrich
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 11:29 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [OPENMRS-DEV] Belated request for module ids

To add on to that, I can get a module id of providermanagement blessed for the Provider Management module?  This module adds a new object, Provider Role, which is linked to a Provider via a column it adds to the Provider table.  A Provider Role can be associated with Provider Attributes, Relationship Types (to specify different types of supported Provider/Patient relationships), and other Provider Roles (to define allowed Supervisor/Supervisee relationships between Provider Roles).  The module provides an API and UI to manage providers and provider relationships.  The module is not yet complete, but I will be doing a work-in-progress demo on the Developers's Call next Thursday.

Mark






________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Darius Jazayeri [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 6:56 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [OPENMRS-DEV] Belated request for module ids

Hi Code, (copying Dev)

I have created the following modules, and deployed them to our maven repo, and to the module repository:

 *   uiframework (the UI framework formerly known as 2.x)
 *   uilibrary (standard widgets built on uiframework)
 *   appframework (the idea of "app" buttons on your homepage that can be enabled per user and role)

I didn't email [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> at the time because I put the code in my github account, but it just occurred to me that since I've deployed these to maven and the module repo, I really should have requested the module id.

So, can I please get those retroactively blessed? :-)

Our documentation about this is currently lacking. In a quick search the only reference I found to emailing [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> is on this page: https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/UwAJ and it's specifically talking about access to the svn repo.

Obviously I should be allowed to put my code at github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework<http://github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework> without asking permission. But I should need to ask permission to take a module id in the maven and module repos. Do we want to just rephrase our documentation to say you need to ask [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> to claim a module id in the OpenMRS repos? Or do want to consider something else?

-Darius

PS- working with git and github is wonderful. Like playing in cotton candy clouds with sunshine and rainbows. The combination of Eclipse+git+maven works a lot better than with svn, for not having to worry about annoying eclipse plugin and connector versions. The workflow is more complicated, but I mostly haven't had to deal with that yet.



[hidden email] from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list
Mark Goodrich-2 Mark Goodrich-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Belated request for module ids -- provider role

In reply to this post by Friedman, Roger (CDC/CGH/DGHA) (CTR)
Yes, taking a look at Daniel's Organizational role proposal was on my to do list for the weekend, but I didn't get to it..

We definitely went back and forth on just adding provider role as a provider attribute versus modifying the provider table directly.  The main reason we ended up adding provider role directly to provider is to facilitate rolling the change into core *if* we decide we want to go that way.  This would be similar to the way "program location" started off in a module but was then rolled into core.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Friedman, Roger (CDC/CGH/DGHA) (CTR)
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 12:06 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [OPENMRS-DEV] Belated request for module ids -- provider role

If you compare Mark's Provider Role implementation with Daniel's Organizational Role proposal, there are some notable differences:
(1) Organizational role is many to one with person, while Provider Role is one to one with provider
(2) Organizational role is associated with a location as well as a person.
Unless the functions of the two Role formulations are very different, I think we ought to have a common understanding about these issues.

Also, I'd like to hear others' opinions on a module modifying a core object.  I think the appropriate thing to do would be to subclass the core object.  Of course, if you do subclass a core object with attributes, you are gaining very little on just having an attribute.  Maybe if it were modeled as table-per-concrete-subclass rather than our more typical table-per-superclass-plus-concrete-subclass you might get the same performance benefits as extending the table.

I think the question of whether Roles supervise Roles (with or without consideration of Location) or Persons/Providers supervise Persons/Providers has multiple possible answers.

I know that Mark was facing a deadline and had to make choices, but maybe we will have to wait for v.2 to have a common solution.  I look forward to Thursday's presentation.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mark Goodrich
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 11:29 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [OPENMRS-DEV] Belated request for module ids

To add on to that, I can get a module id of providermanagement blessed for the Provider Management module?  This module adds a new object, Provider Role, which is linked to a Provider via a column it adds to the Provider table.  A Provider Role can be associated with Provider Attributes, Relationship Types (to specify different types of supported Provider/Patient relationships), and other Provider Roles (to define allowed Supervisor/Supervisee relationships between Provider Roles).  The module provides an API and UI to manage providers and provider relationships.  The module is not yet complete, but I will be doing a work-in-progress demo on the Developers's Call next Thursday.

Mark






________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Darius Jazayeri [[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 6:56 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [OPENMRS-DEV] Belated request for module ids

Hi Code, (copying Dev)

I have created the following modules, and deployed them to our maven repo, and to the module repository:

 *   uiframework (the UI framework formerly known as 2.x)
 *   uilibrary (standard widgets built on uiframework)
 *   appframework (the idea of "app" buttons on your homepage that can be enabled per user and role)

I didn't email [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> at the time because I put the code in my github account, but it just occurred to me that since I've deployed these to maven and the module repo, I really should have requested the module id.

So, can I please get those retroactively blessed? :-)

Our documentation about this is currently lacking. In a quick search the only reference I found to emailing [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> is on this page: https://wiki.openmrs.org/x/UwAJ and it's specifically talking about access to the svn repo.

Obviously I should be allowed to put my code at github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework<http://github.com/djazayeri/openmrs-module-uiframework> without asking permission. But I should need to ask permission to take a module id in the maven and module repos. Do we want to just rephrase our documentation to say you need to ask [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> to claim a module id in the OpenMRS repos? Or do want to consider something else?

-Darius

PS- working with git and github is wonderful. Like playing in cotton candy clouds with sunshine and rainbows. The combination of Eclipse+git+maven works a lot better than with svn, for not having to worry about annoying eclipse plugin and connector versions. The workflow is more complicated, but I mostly haven't had to deal with that yet.
________________________________
Click here to unsubscribe<mailto:[hidden email]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l> from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list

_________________________________________

To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [hidden email] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the  body (not the subject) of your e-mail.

[mailto:[hidden email]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]

_________________________________________

To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [hidden email] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the  body (not the subject) of your e-mail.

[mailto:[hidden email]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]

_________________________________________

To unsubscribe from OpenMRS Developers' mailing list, send an e-mail to [hidden email] with "SIGNOFF openmrs-devel-l" in the  body (not the subject) of your e-mail.

[mailto:[hidden email]?body=SIGNOFF%20openmrs-devel-l]