So do you mean that only 23 (everything that is not draft) of the current 270 archetypes on the CKM are 'safe' to be used? Everything else could be completely changed in the next revision of the draft :(
2011/4/27 Ian McNicoll <Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com>: > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > >
