It is one giant leap from the humanistic world of nursing, health and social care to the m(a-e)chismo of information technology. It is no Earth-bound chasm that greets us in considering the vaguest possibility that nursing could ever be captured, distilled and represented in a domain specific language (DSL). Given the full title of Hodges' model my attraction to DSLs should be obvious, but how realistic is this fascination?
Here are some links to definitions / resources on DSLs:
I am not advocating DSLs as a real time clinical software application, there is neither time here, nor on the wards. Since the sky above is clear blue with not a contrail in sight I am indulging in a little blue sky thinking, a reverie...
Nursing already has its
concept analysis, but taken at face value this says nothing about domains as per
h2cm (other than the context / application is nursing). To avoid confusion with
career in the job-work sense, I have emphasized the notion of
domains. By this I mean a partition of specific knowledge about a discipline or subject. This disciplinary focus or subject is often the province of expert practitioners. My forte then in Hodges' model are the INTERPERSONAL and SOCIAL care domains. This is my rationale for the musings here, as all experts were learners once upon a time, and are still as lifelong learners. It is an educational application that I have in mind.
I have come across a paper by Reinhartz-Berger, who describes the movement -
Towards automatization of domain modeling. The author refers to
domains artifacts and
domain analysis:
(I have removed the reference numbers and inserted from prev para*)
A domain in this context [Domain engineering, also known as software product line engineering]* can be defined as a set of applications that use common concepts to describe requirements, problems, capabilities, and solutions. Domain artifacts are built and reused through domain analysis, which identifies the domains and captures their ontology to assist and guide system developers with particular applications in those domains. Despite the rapid growth of technologies and technical solutions, domain analysis models usually remain valid longer than domain designs and implementations, potentially justifying the cost and effort required for their development. Domain analysis artifacts may also serve as the basis for defining Domain-Specific Languages (DSL). Reinhartz-Berger (2010), p.491.
As the previous post -
Reading the signs... Idealised Care - amongst several revealed, the domains within the health career model are broad to say the least. So broad that from the INDIVIDUAL-GROUP axis the left-hand margin of the INTRAPERSONAL-SOCIOLOGY
# care domains are but distant horizons (with no curvature in-sight). It's no surprise that I keep wondering about how to get a grasp on that 'space', for reasons of a website, a potential community of explorers, educational objectives and sheer enthusiasm for trying to mix IT up. Reinhartz-Berger continues:
Several domain analysis methods have been proposed over the years. However, they all can be criticized as making the domain engineer alone responsible for developing correct, complete, and consistent domain analysis artifacts. Since domains may cover broad areas and are usually understood only during the development process, creating domain models can be a very demanding task. It requires expertise in the domain, reaching a very high level of abstraction, and providing flexible, yet formal, artifacts. Reinhartz-Berger (2010), p.491.
Also in the literature Chavarriaga and Macías (2009) highlight two approaches that are the focus more generally to help get a grip and the big wide world of knowledge: The Semantic Web and Web 2.0.:
... However, in spite of its semantic power, one of the main underlying problems with this [semantic] paradigm is the explicit representation and visualization of information, mainly focused on ontologies and the complex relationships that these code. This has made the Semantic Web inaccessible and unmanageable by most designers that are not expert on ontological representations and languages, but on domain specific applications and creative design.
On the contrary, the Web 2.0 paradigm provides a rather pragmatic vision. It is based on the use of wikis, folksonomies and protocols like SOAP, mainly intended to the automatic management of services and the collaborative maintenance of (mainly) syntactic knowledge-based information. Moreover, Web 2.0 can be considered an end-user paradigm. ... Chavarriaga and Macías (2009), p.1329.
The Semantic Web, Web 2.0 will (at some point) figure in the new site. A folksonomy can be quite broad by definition, as there is no strict control on the definition of terms. As to DSLs in Hodges' model, there we have four VERY broad domains. Exactly how
domain analysis proceeds and what
domain artifacts might emerge from this model would no doubt depend on reducing each of the domains, sub-dividing, being more specific.
If nothing else at present the health career model is a
hybrid cognitive domain specific language.
References: (my source: Science Direct)
Iris Reinhartz-Berger (2010) Towards automatization of domain modeling, Data & Knowledge Engineering, Volume 69, Issue 5, May 2010, Pages 491-515. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2010.01.002
Enrique Chavarriaga, José A. Macías (2009) A model-driven approach to building modern Semantic Web-Based User Interfaces, Advances in Engineering Software, Volume 40, Issue 12, December 2009, Pages 1329-1334. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2009.01.016
The interesting paper below is currently available online:
orcid.org/0000-0002-0192-8965
