As SNOMED and LOINC, I read that there is another universal standard for identifying medical terms called IEEE (whose database would also include fitness/diet/environmental data which I would particularly need for the project I am working on).
My problem is that I have been searching for the codes online but I couldn't find any. Does anybody know if you need to pay to access the code database?
I never heard about IEEE as a coding system for medical information-exchange. If I have never heard of it, I have 17 years of experience in healthcare ICT, then it probably is not very well known and therefore fails in the context of interoperability.
Also, IEEE would not be a smart name for a coding system because it conflicts with IEEE as technology standard organization (https://www.ieee.org/index.html)
Related
I have am working on a Health care project and have come across NCPDP D.0 standard, although I have googled and found some basic information on wiki and other sites, I was looking are there any simple reference or open source example of software allowing pharmacy transactions in NCPDP D.0 format.
Has anyone in the community worked/working on this, and if they can share some information it would be of gr8 help.
Thanks,
HSR.
I think that you will be hard pressed to find any public documentation or open source software following this standard. I haven't been able to find it myself, and to gain access to the standard it's my understanding that you will need to be a member of NCPDP. This is a $675 bump and you are not allowed to share the standard outside of your organization. Standards Purchase.
In addition you'll also need the X12 5010 standard. On the X12 store this could set you back a few thousand dollars.
In any event, the documentation though incomplete is decent on the NCPDP.ORG site, you should check it out.
I'm about to start my honours project at uni on OpenCL and how it can be used to improve modern game development. I know there is a couple of books out now/soon about learning opencl but I was wondering if anyone knows any good papers on opencl.
I've been looking but can't seem to find any. Part of my project requires a literary review and contrast so any help on this would be appreciated.
I'll not point you directly to any papers, instead I'll give you a few hints on where to look for them.
Google scholar, One of the best places on the web to search for papers on any subject. Searching for "opencl game development" turned up a few interesting results right on the first page; for sure there are other valuable results in the following pages.
IEEE Explore; IEEE is one of the de facto establishments on all thing computer and electronics; their journals and conferences have many publications on OpenCL in particular and parallel processing in general. IEEE Explore is their search engine, although usually all articles are also referenced in Google Scholar (but may be easier to find using IEEE explore).
ACM Digital Libray; ACM is a large and important institution like IEEE, but with even bigger focus on computing. You will find many papers on OpenCL there.
Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc; sometimes when everything else fails, using normal search engines can go a long way. You may find information about ongoing projects, important game developers blog posts, etc. All of these can be valid references if there aren't more (be sure to search really well before concluding there aren't more).
You should favor articles published in scientific journals over: a) papers or extended abstracts published in conference proceedings; b) corporate articles, not peer-reviewed, usually found in the respective corporation websites; c) articles published in general scientific knowledge magazines (e.g. Scientific American, etc.).
Sometimes you may not be given access to certain papers, which you will be requested to purchase. Usually, universities have subscriptions to many journals or such, as such you may have better luck trying to download the PDFs when accessing the web inside your institution. If you have no luck, sometimes the authors put "preview/unfinished" copies of the articles in their websites (sometimes they even put the dubiously legal published copy). As a last resort, you can always contact the authors directly, they'll most likely send you the article by email (it's of their own interest).
Finally, to learn OpenCL, I found that a mixture of reference manual, quick reference card and looking at examples from Intel, AMD, Nvidia and IBM SDK's goes a long way. No doubt a book will help, though I can't recommend you any, because I didn't read any.
This probably isn't the answer you wanted, but believe me, it's the answer you need to do a good work.
Good luck!
My organization has recently been wrestling the question of whether we should be incorporating different middleware products / concepts into our applications. Products we are looking at are things like Pegasystems, Oracle BPM / BPEL, BizTalk, Fair Isaac Blaze, etc., etc., etc.
But I'm having a hard time getting a handle on all this. Before I go forward with evaluating the usefulness (positive or negative) of these different products I'm trying to get an understanding of all the different concepts in this space. I'm overwhelmed with an alphabet soup of BPM, ESB, SOA, CEP, WF, BRE, ERP, etc. Some products seem to cover one or more of those aspects, others focus on doing one. The terms all seem very ambiguous and conflated with each other.
Is there a good resource out there to get a handle on all these different middleware concepts / patterns? A book? A website? An article that sums it up well? Bonus points if there is a resource that maps the various popular products into which pattern(s) they address.
Thanks,
~ Justin
I've spent the last 3-4 years blogging on the topics you mentioned (http://www.UdiDahan.com) as well as writing my own lightweight ESB (http://www.NServiceBus.com) and many more years working and consulting in this space. The main conclusion that I've come to is that strong business analysis and technologically-agnostic architecture is needed - no tool or technology can prevent a mess by itself.
There is the Enterprise Integration Patterns book which provides a good catalog of the technical patterns involved but doesn't touch on the necessary business analysis. I've found that Value Networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_network_analysis) can be used as a good start for identifying business boundaries to which IT boundaries can be then aligned, resulting in the benefits of SOA, and the use of an ESB across those boundaries is justified.
CEP, WF, and BRE should be used within a boundary and not across them.
ERP packages tend to cross boundaries and, as such, should be integrated piecemeal into the boundaries mentioned - DDD anti-corruption layers can be used to insulate custom logic from those apps.
Hope that helps.
IBM and Oracle have SOA certifications. Since they're the leaders in the marketplace (Gartner Magic Quadrant), I would read about how they define SOA and ESBs (along with methodology and the components needed to support SOA like Governance, Registry, etc etc). It'll give you the high level overview that you're looking for and the use cases "all this middleware" is trying to solve.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Who is winning in the "Low vs High fidelity prototyping" debate?
Should prototype-zero (P0) be the first version of the final product? Or should be P-0 always a throwaway? What approach is the industry favoring?
Excelent article from wikipedia: Software prototyping
A prototype should always be a throwaway - a prototype is used to quickly prove a concept and influence the design of the real product. As such, a lot of things which are important for a real product (a thought-out architecture and design, reliability, security, maintainability, etc.) fall by the wayside. If you do take these things into account when building your prototype, you're not really building a prototype anymore.
My experience with prototypes where the code directly evolved into an actual product shows that the end-result suffers because of it - the lack of a real architecture resulted in a lot of cobbled-together code that had to be constantly hacked to add new features. I've even seen a case the original technology chosen for rapid development of the prototype was not the best choice for the actual product, and a complete re-write was necessary for V2.
I think we, the pedants, have lost this particular battle -- alleged "prototypes" (which by definition should be rewritten from scratch!!!-) are in fact being "evolved" into (often half-baked "betas"), etc.
Even today, I've applauded at the smart attempt by a colleague of mine to recapture the concept, even if the term is a lost battle: he's setting up a way for proofs of concept small projects to be developed (and, if the concept does get proven, transferred to software engineers for real prototyping, then development).
The idea is that, in our department, we have many people who aren't (and aren't in fact supposed to be!-) software developers, but are very smart, computer savvy, and in daily contact with the reality "in the trenches" -- they are the ones who are most likely to smell an opportunity for some potential innovation which could have real impact once implemented as a "production-ready" software project. Salespeople, account managers, business analysts, technology managers -- at our company, they all often fit this description.
But they're NOT going to program in C++, hardly at all in Java, maybe in Python but miles away from "productionized" -- indeed they're far more likely to whip up a smart proof of concept in php, javascript, perl, bash, Excel+VBA, and sundry other "quick and dirty" technologies we don't even want to dream about productionizing and supporting forevermore!-)
So by calling their prototypes "proofs of concept", we hope to encourage them to embody their daring concepts in concrete form (vague natural-language blabberings and much waving of hands being least useful, and alien to the company's culture anyway;-) and yet sharply indicate that such projects, if promoted to exist among the software engineers' goals and priorities, DO have to be programmed from scratch -- the proof-of-concept serves, at best, as a good draft/sketch spec for what the engineers are aiming for, definitely NOT to be incrementally enriched, but redone from the root up!-).
It's early to say how well this idea works -- ask me in three months, when we evaluate the quarter's endeavors (right now, we're just providing a blueprint for them, hot on the heels of evaluating last quarter's department- and company-wise undertakings!-).
Write the prototype, then keep refactoring it until it becomes the product.
The key is to not hesitate to refactor when necessary.
It helps to have few people working on it initially. With too many people working on something, refactoring becomes more difficult.
Response from BUNDALLAH, HAMISI
A prototype typically simulates only a few aspects of the features of the eventual program, and may be completely different from the eventual implementation.
Contrary to what my other colleagues have suggested above, I would NOT advise my boss to opt for the throw away prototype model. I am with Anita on this. Given the two prototype models and the circumstances provided, I would strongly advise the management (my boss) to opt for the evolutionary prototype model. The company being large with all the other variables given such as the complexity of the code, the newness of the programming language to be used, I would not use throw away prototype model. The throw away prototype model becomes the starting point from which users can re-examine their expectations and clarify their requirements. When this has been achieved, the prototype model is 'thrown away', and the system is formally developed based on the identified requirements (Crinnion, 1991). But with this situation, the users may not know all the requirements at once due to the complexity of the factors given in this particular situation. Evolutionary prototyping is the process of developing a computer system by a process of gradual refinement. Each refinement of the system contains a system specification and software development phase. In contrast to both the traditional waterfall approach and incremental prototyping, which required everyone to get everything right the first time this approach allows participants to reflect on lessons learned from the previous cycle(s). It is usual to go through three such cycles of gradual refinement. However there is nothing stopping a process of continual evolution which is often the case in many systems. According to Davis (1992), an evolutionary prototyping acknowledges that we do not understand all the requirements (as we have been told above that the system is complex, the company is large, the code will be complex, and the language is fairly new to the programming team). The main goal when using Evolutionary Prototyping is to build a very robust prototype in a structured manner and constantly refine it. The reason for this is that the Evolutionary prototype, when built, forms the heart of the new system, and the improvements and further requirements will be built. This technique allows the development team to add features, or make changes that couldn't be conceived during the requirements and design phase. For a system to be useful, it must evolve through use in its intended operational environment. A product is never "done;" it is always maturing as the usage environment change. Developers often try to define a system using their most familiar frame of reference--where they are currently (or rather, the current system status). They make assumptions about the way business will be conducted and the technology base on which the business will be implemented. A plan is enacted to develop the capability, and, sooner or later, something resembling the envisioned system is delivered. (SPC, 1997).
Evolutionary Prototypes have an advantage over Throwaway Prototypes in that they are functional systems. Although they may not have all the features the users have planned, they may be used on an interim basis until the final system is delivered.
In Evolutionary Prototyping, developers can focus themselves to develop parts of the system that they understand instead of working on developing a whole system. To minimize risk, the developer does not implement poorly understood features. The partial system is sent to customer sites. As users work with the system, they detect opportunities for new features and give requests for these features to developers. Developers then take these enhancement requests along with their own and use sound configuration-management practices to change the software-requirements specification, update the design, recode and retest. (Bersoff and Davis, 1991).
However, the main problems with evolutionary prototyping are due to poor management: Lack of defined milestones, lack of achievement - always putting off what would be in the present prototype until the next one, lack of proper evaluation, lack of clarity between a prototype and an implemented system, lack of continued commitment from users. This process requires a greater degree of sustained commitment from users for a longer time span than traditionally required. Users must be constantly informed as to what is going on and be completely aware of the expectations of the 'prototypes'.
References
Bersoff, E., Davis, A. (1991). Impacts of Life Cycle Models of Software Configuration Management. Comm. ACM.
Crinnion, J.(1991). Evolutionary Systems Development, a practical guide to the use of prototyping within a structured systems methodology. Plenum Press, New York.
Davis, A. (1992). Operational Prototyping: A new Development Approach. IEEE Software.
Software Productivity Consortium (SPC). (1997). Evolutionary Rapid Development. SPC document SPC-97057-CMC, version 01.00.04.
I'm a totally blind individual who would like to learn more of the theory aspect of computer science. I've had an intro data structures class and the general intro programming but would like to learn more on things such as software design, advanced data structures, and compiler design. I want to do this as a self study course not as part of college classes.
Unfortunately there aren’t many text books available on computer science from Recordings for the Blind and Dyslexic where I normally get my textbooks. I would appreciate any electronic resources preferably free that could help me get more of a computer science education rather then the newest language or platform that a lot of programming sites appear to focus on.
You might find the Experiences of a Blind Computer Scientist a good read.
MIT's Open Courseware would be a good resource for you with the amount of videos/audio they have.
Really though, for the core computer-science topics I find it pretty hard to beat some of the better textbooks out there. Some offer digital versions of their book with purchase and some don't. For those that don't, I would just purchase the book and then download via a torrent site a digital e-book equivelant. Since you already own the book I don't think this would be a major problem.
UC Berkley has a couple of computer science courses online for free as mp3 and video files (including RSS feed for each course). And if reading PDF files aren't an issue you could check out O'Reilly's Safari.
The text book for Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs appears to be accessible. Software engineering radio is a good podcast that I listen to but recently has focused a lot on model driven development and UML which doesn't interest me. The UC Berkley
lectures are of varying quality, it's like all other college classes it depends on the professor. I've found I can follow along with the cs162 lectures fine but not so much with the cs61b. Part of this is because of the professor and part is probably because 61b is more math heavy since it's a data structures class. Unfortunately the RSS feeds are useless since the file names are meaningless. I used my podcatcher to download the entire lecture series, then used the converting capability of foobar 2000 to rename the files with there track number so I could listen to them in order. I've used Safari at work before and it is accessible although to expensive for me to get a yearly subscription. Open Courseware appears to have a lot of good stuff. Unfortunately I don't use itunes so instead of downloading each mp3 file individually I used the firefox extension DownThemAll! with a custom filter to grab all the mp3 files at once from the specific course I wanted. Another series of books that looks useful are the data structures books by Bruno R. Preiss several of which are available online at
http://www.brpreiss.com/books/opus5/
Some of the equations are represented as graphics but I can often tell what the general idea is by context.
I wonder would the Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs video lectures by Hal Abelson and Gerald Jay Sussman be of any use?
If the audio content is enough on its own without the video, they are an excellent digital resource.
The podcast "software engineering radio" is excellent. Though not CS courseware, it is the most academic and intellectually stimulating podcast I have found about software development and computer science.
http://www.se-radio.net/
personally I am just blown away by the questioner. I mean, the challenge alone of programming is too much for most people but being without the primary sense used in the task is amazing to me. What is ironic though is I bet that given this challenge the questioner is still FAR more adept at most CS tasks than the people I work with day to day. Just saying.
I'm also a totally blind programmer, currently working for Microsoft. The most valuable resource for te technical books is Safari (safari.oreilly.com). You can read thousands of computer science texts there. if you're in the USA, you can also get many of those titles for free from BookShare (www.bookshare.org). In both cases graphical images will be an issue, but there's no easy solution for that. Most good books have enough descriptive text that one can manage without the diagrams.
I to am a new blind programmer! I only lost my vision 5 years ago. Anyway, I have been programming in Visual Basic 2008 throughout the past year. It turned out to be more accessible than I had at first suspected.
I start a Java class next semester and the required text is a free online text! It is posted below.
Introduction to Programming Using Java, Fifth Edition
http://math.hws.edu/javanotes/
Can some of you seasoned blind programmers share with us any blogs or websites where other blind programmers can be found??
Check out this Stack Overflow question about podcasts.
A language called Quorum is a lot like Python but optimized across a few more syntactic details, and the corresponding development environment is designed with the blind in mind. https://quorumlanguage.com/ This might fit especially well with the use case where most students are using Python.
A 2016 blog about CSed (actually a response to a blog post) points to
program-l discussion board for blind programmers at https://www.freelists.org/list/program-l
The EPIQ conference for blind and other programmers interested in Quorum
https://quorumlanguage.com/epiq.html
Also, see other ideas in a similar question on another SO site: https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/questions/3441/teaching-a-blind-high-school-student