on 3-2-2009 17:53 Thomas Beale wrote: > Ian McNicoll wrote: >> 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. > * > but then the previous releases that the archetype may or may not work > with are lost, if it is being update to indicate the latest one it works > with. And an archetype might not be touched for a long time (due to > being perfect ;-) and so would never have this information updated. So I > can't see how it is in any way trustworthy when written in the archetype. > > - thomas
So you probably want two properties recorded? One being 'was-created/revised-against-RM-version' with a single value and the other being 'works-with-or-validated-against-RM-versions' of the list type And recording these properties within the archetype seems to save time in looking up this info; looking it up via the CKM will take much more time. Roger
