Maybe it's a good thing openehr hasn't been proliferated yet, otherwise we'd be stuck with some basic flaws.
I think it's broad statements like this that tend to put peoples noses out of joint - this morning you were decrying their lack of professionalism because they hadn't done the basics of running their schemas through a validator - only for it to be your translation that was wrong. Now, because you disagree with a one design decision (and you have presented an alternative that is for all intensive purposes identical, only with fields moved around), you are claiming that the whole effort has some basic flaws. My impression of the openehr group is that they are more than willing that accept good constructive criticism - if you feel you have some insights into the base data types you should feed it back to them. Andrew _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
