Bert Verhees wrote: > >> *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.
actually, I would only agree at the level of major version - there are archetypes around that started life when Release 1.0.1 was the latest, and may not be finished until Release 1.0.2 is already issued. It most likely makes no difference to the authors. - thomas
