> *We thought about this a number of times over the last few years. The > problem is that many archetypes are completely compatible with multiple > versions of the reference model, because changes occur in other parts of > the reference model. So marking an archetype with "RM version 1.0" > doesn't tell you the most likely question you will ask, which is "is > this archetype compatible with R 1.0.2, that I am using in my system?" > The answer might be no or yes - it depends on the archetype, and what > things it references in the RM. The only solution I can see is to put > such compatibility information in the CKM and other similar tools, and > make the compatibility list available from service interfaces that > provide access to archetypes. The same goes for shared templates. > > So I think that a RM version number indicator on an archetype is in > general not useful, and may even be misleading. > I agree, but on the other hand, an archetype is modelled according to a specific RM-version. And as the good work progresses, we probably will face changes in the RM. Also, one could consider to have the RM-version depending on compatibility. In other words, one could keep the minor-comaptible.
So 1.0.1 would be compatible with 1.0.2 But it would not necessary be compatible with 1.1.1 I think, this gives a professional impression to version the RM on base of compatibility. Bert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090203/38f8144e/attachment.html>
