From ivaldes@hal-pc.org Mon Jun  9 16:22:52 2003
X-Envelope-From: <ivaldes@hal-pc.org>
X-Envelope-To: <christian.heller@tuxtax.de>
X-Delivery-Time: 1055168576
Received: from mail.hal-pc.org (mail.hal-pc.org [206.180.145.133])
	by mailin.webmailer.de (8.12.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id h59EMtrD026866
	for <christian.heller@tuxtax.de>; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:22:56 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from [206.180.154.121] (HELO hal-pc.org)
  by mail.hal-pc.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9)
  with ESMTP id 49514526 for christian.heller@tuxtax.de; Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:22:53 -0500
Message-ID: <3EE4983C.4070906@hal-pc.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:22:52 -0500
From: Ignacio Valdes <ivaldes@hal-pc.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christian Heller <christian.heller@tuxtax.de>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: a submission to JOSMC!]
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset=us-ascii;
  format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
X-Status: F

Christian, this is one of the referees comments:

Ignacio Valdes wrote:

> Dear member of the editorial board for the Journal of Open Source 
> Medical Computing,
>
> It has been a long time in coming, but I'm proud to attach the 1st 
> submission to the Journal of Open Source Medical Computing. This is in 
> PDF format as well as text format for annotations if you have any.  If 
> I could have your reviews by Monday of next week, June 9th, I would 
> appreciate it. Score card is as follows:
>
> Comments to the author:
>
>
> 1) Clarity of writing: 1 excellent 2 good 3 neutral 4 poor 5 very poor 

3 - A lot of familiarity with object oriented programming concepts is 
required to understand the paper.
Changes in terms (perhaps to avoid repetition?) might be confusing.  For 
example:  Chain of repsonsibility is described as message passing.  When 
it all comes together in the Hierarchial Model-View-Controller, the 
message passing is described as "communicate with each other by relating 
over the controller object".  I think I figured this out or did I?

>
> 2) Quality of references (author has researched previous work 
> adequately): 1 excellent 2 good 3 neutral 4 poor

> 5 very poor 

3 - One reference is incomplete, JC00 is given a title and authors, but 
no publishing source.  Some of the  concepts are described as "often 
used" or a "very approved way", while others are just asserted.  It 
would be good to have some references which establish these concepts.

>
> 3) Novelty/impact of idea: 1 excellent 2 good 3 neutral 4 poor 5 very 
> poor

3 - Hard to tell.  I think more exposistion is needed  on two fronts.

First the technical front.  Since most of the components of CYBOP seem 
to come from the OO literature, what is it that CYBOP adds?  It appears 
to be the extension to the concept of Hierarchial Model-View-Controller, 
whose reference (JC00)  is incomplete as noted above.

The use of CYBOP to implement the EHR architecture from OpenEHR.   How 
does this approach differ from the approach used in the OpenEHR 
project?  Is CYBOP able to implent OpenEHR because it is so general it 
can implement anything or does it bring some advantage to an OpenEHR 
implementation?





-- 
-- Ignacio Valdes,MD,MS Editor: Linux Medical News
http://www.linuxmednews.com
'Revolutionizing Medical Education and Practice'



