Sam Heard wrote:
> 1. Primacy of openEHR: I would propose that we need a hierarchy of
> authority. Although openEHR artefacts are presently managed within the
> Foundation it is possible that the governance will move to a more
> authoritative organisation in the near future. That said, I believe that
> archetypes released by the openEHR Foundation should not be identified
> specially (i.e. no name space). This means that openEHR becomes the default
> namespace for archetypes and begins to provide a hierarchy of authority that
> I think is so important in this space. One might argue that anyone can
> produce archetypes with no namespace - but really anyone can produce
> anything with any namespace so that is not sufficient.
>
Hi Sam,
The primacy of openEHR sounds good, but wouldn't it be better to stamp
the archetypes with "the openEHR seal of approval"? Your proposal above
means that all of the home-grown local archetypes sitting on people's
own computers at the moment are indistinguishable from the authoritative
openEHR archetypes.
I don't buy the argument that producing an archetype with no namespace
is equivalent to producing an archetype with any namespace:
* Archetypes with no namespace can (and will!) be produced
frequently, innocently and by accident.
* Producing an archetype with the "openehr" namespace would be a
deliberate act, a conscious choice.
- Peter
