Dear all, The text below by Thomas warrants a conclusion: - openEHR needs a (place in a) document that defines the correct wording and meaning of: version and revision.
To my mind these words are to much similar and can generate confusions. Alternatives: Package (new Archetype that breaks the previous package archetype) plus conversion script from the Old to the New Archetype) Version (new Archetype as the result of some editorial changes, only, not breaking the previous version) Gerard On Jun 4, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Thomas Beale wrote: > The result of this is that new _versions_ of officially released > archetypes should be very low in number and should always have a > formal > definition of how to migrate data created using an older version. > > The confusing factor that people are seeing now is that due to the > current tooling, most archetype authors are creating new 'versions' > when > in fact the changes are only new revisions -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, MD Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252544896 M: +31 620347088 E: gfrer at luna.nl Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20080604/4100af17/attachment.html>
