Sam Heard wrote: > Hi All > > I would suggest that we have a very strong backwardly compatible notion on > each reference model and do not do anything that would invalidate current > archetypes in RM 1.x > > This would mean that we only had to record the highest level version that an > archetype was compatible with in the archetype RM 1.0 and leave it at that. > > I am sure people working in the environment would like such an approach. > > It means we have two rules: > All archetypes of the same version are compatible semantically > All archetypes work with the reference model version (1,2 etc) and go on > being compatible. > > Cheers, Sam > *I still have not see a solution to the basic problem that if we record a compatibility release(s) _inside_ the archetype, then whenever a new release of openEHR comes out, thousands of archetypes would be updated to reflect the new release number. If this is not done, then those archetypes will over time look as if they stopped being compatible with later releases of openEHR. Making the modification means that every archetype in every local repository would have to be modified this way, as well as in central places like CKM. And it means that we are now re-issuing archetypes when no update is needed to the content. I can't see how this can work. I don't mind including the release number of openEHR when the archetype was first released, but I don't see how it can be useful information.
- thomas beale *
