From ivaldes@hal-pc.org Mon Jun 9 16:22:52 2003 X-Envelope-From: X-Envelope-To: 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 ; 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 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 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'