I'll let Silje and Heather talk more about overall progress with the publication [process but we all have ot recognise that this is a huge job which just takes time. As Sebastian has said most of the work done, even at an editorial level is done by volunteers, in particular, the Norwegian CKM team are giving a lot of their time for joint development. The Foundation has been able to fund particular work that Heather is picking up right now and broadly speaking the Clinical and Specification sides have a similar budget. This is all down to vendors, organisations recognising the huge value that we all gain from this collaborative effort. Yes it takes time, and yes we can always do more but I do see steady and useful progress.
I would say that no developer should be relying on any CKM or indeed any remote repository as their source of truth. These artefacts should all be regarded in exactly the same way as a third-party software library. Download and maintain local copies, in whatever environment you prefer (I use git). There is definitely a gap in having some developer-tooling to support this, and as Sebastian says, we do need something more akin to Maven or NPM to manage the increasingly complex dependencies. I am more confident than Sebastian that we will reach a high degree of alignment of versions of archetypes as these mature in CKM and in vendor systems but it will take time and effort. This is a vastly complex world. The openEHR process my seem slow and a bit chaotic but I still believe it has shown itself, so far to be the only means of tackling this complexity at any sort of scale. So sign up, get involved. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: [email protected] twitter: @ianmcnicoll Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. CCIO inidus Ltd. [email protected] Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation [email protected] Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 07:18, Sebastian Garde < [email protected]> wrote: > To download, for example click on the Details Button underneath each > archetype revision in the revision history. > > You can also keep track of all the changes in the git repository at > https://github.com/openEHR/CKM-mirror > > While I obviously agree with the aim of everybody using the same > archetypes, it is probably still a bit of a lofty aim. > > Nonetheless a lot of progress has actually been made and it is my > understanding at least that many of the more commonly required archetypes > are published. Even so, I would see the RM as the core schema, and that > doesn’t change if you use different archetypes. > > > > Pablo, yes, agree with funding, but it always seems that everybody wants > something. > > Re automating comparisons, maybe we should look into exposing this via the > api as well somehow. > > Nonetheless, the semantic version and also the log message should at least > give an indication of the type of change and impact. > > I think Ian and Bjorn have some packaging ideas to better support > implementers – this is somewhat the other side of the modelling coin, but > important of course as well. > > Sebastian > > > > *Von:* openEHR-clinical <[email protected]> *Im > Auftrag von *Dileep V S > *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 28. Mai 2019 07:11 > *An:* For openEHR clinical discussions <[email protected] > > > *Betreff:* Re: Downloading previous versions of archetypes from CKM > > > > Hi, > > > > Thank you for all the responses. It has helped me clear a couple of of > things that need to be keep in mind while using resources from OpenEHR CKM. > Just to summarize, > > 1. Archetypes in v0 are to be treated as initial suggestions and can > change anytime and without any pattern. Published ones from v1 are more > stable and the changes managed better. > 2. Using V0 is at one's own risk and so keeping a local copy would be > advisable > 3. CKM allows viewing and comparing version history using archetype > history > > The above raises some additional questions > > 1. What are the specific steps/links to download older version of > archetypes from the CKM. The archetype history allows comparison between > versions. But I could not find any link to view/download older versions. > 2. Majority of the archetypes in CKM are unpublished v0 versions. So > it is difficult to build any meaningful CDR currently using only published > archetypes. What will be the best strategy to keep moving forward with > creating real solutions while keeping the spirit of OpenEHR relevant. > 3. Managing copies of the archetypes that are used separately by > different users is bound to create fragmented schema across openEHR > compliant CDRs, thereby defeating the fundamental premise of interoperable > schema among OpenEHR CDRs. > > regards > > [image: https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0BxQc41y9yqs6bkE5a1JQQVBjZG8] > > Dileep V S > > *Founder* > > *HealtheLife Ventures LLP* > > m: > > +91 9632888113 > > a: > > 106, Innovation Centre, IIIT, Electronics City, Bangalore 560100 > > w: > > ehr.network, <http://ehr.network>ayushehr.com e: [email protected] > > > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 2:15 AM Sebastian Garde < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi > > > > The v1 to v0 migration was a once off thing that was decided to be the > best for never before published archetypes. > > I’ve never been a big fan of v0 because of the all the complications it > has, but at least it tells you clearly that all bets are off regarding this > archetype because it is under development and anything goes, including > changes to its archetype id, if required. > > V0 is also consistent with SemVer (although you could do it differently as > well, e.g. 1.0.0-alpha). > > After publication to v1, the governance is more formal and follows > semantic versioning of patch, minor and major versions. > > > > It may not always be nice, but unless someone can provide a comprehensive, > clean and perfect set of archetypes, that’s what life will be for a while. > CKM aims to support the processes around the development, review and > publication of the archetypes etc. as much as possible. > > In CKM, the revision history of an archetype links back to any previous > (or next) major version of the archetype. See e.g. the Blood pressure v2 > archetype. You can get any (trunk) revision of the archetype that was ever > uploaded to CKM from there and compare any two revisions. Archetypes that > were updated in the last couple of years will have the SemVer version in it > as well, and there is always the canonical hash (the one used in the > template) you can use to determine the right version of the archetype if > required. > > > > I hope this answer your questions below and provides a bit of context in > between. > > > > Regards, > > Sebastian > > > > *From:* openEHR-clinical <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *Pablo Pazos > *Sent:* Montag, 27. Mai 2019 20:37 > *To:* For openEHR clinical discussions <[email protected] > > > *Subject:* Re: Downloading previous versions of archetypes from CKM > > > > You might also have problems with some archetypes that went from .v1 to .v0 > > > > In the archetype history you can see the previous versions, but some will > have a broken history, for instance some archetypes changed name and > archetype id but serve the same purpose as the old archetypes, which broke > any implementation of the previous archetype. Also there is no clear > history of archetypes changing ID or merging archetypes. > > > > Because of those issues is difficult to trust what is on the CKM in the > long term. I decided to work with older archetypes to keep my baseline > clean and stable, do modifications on those if required, and create our own > archetypes when required. > > > > I'm not sure if this is because how the CKM manages archetypes, or because > the modeling process have flaws in the version management. > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 5:01 AM Dileep V S <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I had used some archetypes from CKM in my templates some time back. Now > when I am revising & reviewing them I notice that some of the archetypes > have newer versions an so my templates give error as they are unable to > locate the older versions that they use. So I have a few questions on the > best practices for using CMK resources > > 1. Can I access older versions of archetypes from CKM? and how? > 2. Should I maintain a copy of the archetype versions that are used in > my templates separately? > 3. Are archetype versions incremental improvements? If yes should the > AQL not support multiple versions to maintain backward compatibility as the > templates evolve? > > regards > > [image: https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0BxQc41y9yqs6bkE5a1JQQVBjZG8] > > Dileep V S > > *Founder* > > *HealtheLife Ventures LLP* > > m: > > +91 9632888113 > > a: > > 106, Innovation Centre, IIIT, Electronics City, Bangalore 560100 > > w: > > ehr.network, <http://ehr.network>ayushehr.com e: [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > > > -- > > *Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez* > [email protected] > +598 99 043 145 > skype: cabolabs > Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj> > > [image: > https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B27lX-sxkymfM1pnTU44YXlFbHc&export=download] > <https://cabolabs.com/> > http://www.cabolabs.com > https://cloudehrserver.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
