Peter, A change in the concept will cause a new canonical hash, because the concept is part of the ontology, and the ontology is part of the canonical hash.
About changing ?archetype (adl_version=1.4)? to ?archetype (adl_version=1.5)?, you are right, this will cause also a new canonical hash. Although at this time the Archetype editor does not seem to take this ?archetype (adl_version=1.x)? in consideration when loading the Archetype in its environment, which is clearly a bug. (for instance, archetype (adl_version = 1.6) is also allowed and loaded by the current Archetype editor without giving any notification). A future Archetype Editor should not automatically upgrade an Archetype to a new ADL version and certainly not overwrite an existing Archetype of a previous ADL version. That will cause some major impact. About removing the concept, I do see a few (minor) advantages and disadvantages: Advantage: The simpler it gets, the better it is. Removing the ?concept? makes it more simpler. Disadvantage: All parsers should be reviewed and probably need to be updated. Overall we think it is a good proposal to remove the ?concept? out of the Archetype. Alessandro Torrisi On 6 July 2010 08:22, Sebastian Garde <sebastian.garde at oceaninformatics.com>wrote: > > > Peter Gummer wrote: > > Sebastian Garde wrote: > > > > > >> Not sure if this change would has an impact on the canonical MD5 > >> hash generated by the Archetype Editor - ideally it would be the > >> same for an archetype with or without the concept clause? > >> > > > > > > I doubt it, Sebastian. Any small changes made to an archetype today > > will cause the MD5 hash to change. > > > > For example, open an existing archetype in a text editor and replace > > its first line: > > archetype (adl_version=1.4) > > With this: > > archetype (adl_version=1.5 > Ah, that's right....so each and every archetype MD5 hash will change > anyway when migrating to ADL 1.5 (with or without Tom's proposed change > to remove the concept) - then removing the concept shouldn't matter. > > Sebastian > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > -- Alessandro Torrisi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100706/ebc62322/attachment.html>
