Back on Track

Based on my previous blog and the feedback I've gotten, I can now set the direction in which I will be working. As stated before, I will investigate collaborative annotation methods which can be used as a step for the generation of an App as CDSS. However, I will no longer only focus on web-based annotation systems. After reading the FHIES article* by Van Gorp et al (2012) and a Skype meeting with my supervisor Pieter Van Gorp, it is now clear that it is better to also investigate other programs/platforms. Therefore, I will investigate 4 different methods which could be used to annotate different process-oriented models in healthcare (e.g. clinical guidelines).

The methods I will investigate are:

1)     GEM Cutter II

2)     EuGENia

3)     SHARE

4)     Web Annotation Tools

These methods are chosen based on the research of the above mentioned FHIES article and experience of Pieter Van Gorp. Since I am not familiar with these methods, I will have to investigate each one thoroughly. I will start by looking up general information and reading articles concerning these methods. After this I will also try to work with them to get a better feeling on how they actually work.

Eventually, I will try to argue which method is most applicable for the collaborative annotation of process-oriented models in healthcare. This decision will be made on yet to determine criteria.

*Full article name: 'MDE support for process-oriented health information systems: from theory to practice' by Van Gorp et al (2012)

Adjustment based on comment

It seems I have misunderstood the functionality of SHARE. I, therefore, want to restate the methods I will investigate. They will be of two different types:

1) SHARE-executed Desktop Tools:

     - GEM Cutter II

     - EuGENia

     - ...

2) Web Annotation Tools:

     - Diigo

     - Zotero

     - ...