Either 'rm', 'im' or 'rim' would be fine since it's just a package name. People would perhaps still call it RIM or reference information model regardless of which package name is chosen.
As for the impact of the rename, well we kept our source repositories in both Bitkeeper and CVS. Now all changes in BitKeeper will be gone, and renaming directories is big pain in CVS as everyone knows. :( Of course, we can certainly cope with the rename if it finally makes its way to the specification. Rong Thomas Beale wrote: > > In the current openEHR reference model, there are 3 top-level packages, > known as: > - rm: the information model > - am: the archeype model > - sm: the service model > > The first of these really should be "im", not "rm", and is only "rm" for > historical reasons. As we convert from BitKeeper to Subversion, and also > as we are approaching release 1.0, it occurs to me that it would be nice > to make the change of "rm" to "im", which would make documentation > clearer, and reduce the confusion around the phrase "reference model". > > However, there is already a fair bit of software, schemas and so on > around the place. It might be too late to make such a change. Note that > it need not be done for software still to be correct, since we are only > talking about a package name - it does not change any class names, nor > any tag names in XML data that I can think of. > > Can I have reactions on how this change would be received. It were ever > to be made, now would obviously be the time. > > - thomas beale > - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
