Hi Diego,
For those who are not aware, Diego is referring to a slew of updates to the
Demographic archetypes, most in response to Review comments to the Name and
Address archetypes.
In many cases there have been significant structural changes and if any of
these archetypes had been published, I would absolutely agree that we should
have given them new versions. However because they are still in draft and
have never been published, we need to have the flexibility to make
significant changes to structure and content in response to review
comments.Once these archetypes are published we will strictly follow the
rules about revisions and new versions, and CKM provides very powerful
validation checking to help us know when an archetype is no longer backward
compatible.
Unfortunately because of other commitments,We have discussed the possibility
of adding another publishing status to archetypes to distinguish between
archetypes that are in early draft (like alpha code and therefore volatiile)
and those that are effectively Release candidates - would this be helpful.
Regards,
Ian
PS Enjoyed your Japanese presentation.
Dr Ian McNicoll
office +44 (0)1536 414 994
+44 (0)2032 392 970
fax +44 (0)1536 516317
mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859
skype ianmcnicoll
ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com
Clinical Modelling Consultant, Ocean Informatics, UK
openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge
Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL
BCS Primary Health Care www.phcsg.org
On 27 April 2011 02:38, Diego Bosc? <yampeku at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> With the latest Demographic archetypes updates on the CKM I think we
> have to be careful with archetype versioning. The new archetypes seem
> quite different of the ones that were uploaded some time ago. They are
> different on structure but the version of the archetype has not been
> improved (and the last archetype is just missing from the CKM).
> Shouldn't a change on the archetype structure create a new version
> (v2) of the archetype?
> I think changes like "significant update, simplifying structure",
> "Updated for alignment with altered parent", "Significant re-working"
> must generate new versions.
> For all the changes, I think only "Constraint loosened" ones are the
> only ones that won't need to generate new versions, but everything
> else should.
> We should be more careful with this kind of things.
>
> Regards
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110427/ab4901c4/attachment.html>
