Hi Thomas, I was suggesting the RM version be recorded when the archetype is officially published or revisioned and re-published. This is the only time when an archetype author can be expected to take some account of the underlying RM when designing or revising the model. It is not a perfect solution but it gives some estimation of the RM version that the author was working against when designing the archetype. The archetype tools could automatically record the RM version whenever an archetype lifecyle transitions to published or has its version/revision updated.
Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian at mcmi.co.uk Clinical Analyst Ocean Informatics ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com BCS Primary Health Care Specialist Group www.phcsg.org 2009/2/3 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > Ian McNicoll wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > Whilst I agree that in most circumstances it would be of no interest > > to authors, there may be circumstances where it is important to know > > the exact RM version and revision, perhaps for safety-critical > > archetypes, which the 'consumers' wish to check meticulously. I see no > > harm in documenting the full RM version when an archetype is > > published, even if in the vast majority of cases it is of no > > importance. > > > > > *but which RM version? There will usually be more than one that the > archetype is compatible with, and the list keeps changing, so it doesn't > make sense to put that information in the archetype itself. > > - thomas > > * > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090203/7b1406cd/attachment.html>
