I had better be more precise here ;-) 'proper' URIs or URNs may be the correct approach. URLs almost certainly are not. So the spec might remain correct technically, just that the guidance for what URIs can be used should probably change.
- thomas On 21/02/2011 11:06, Peter Gummer wrote: > Thomas Beale wrote: > >> What probably does make sense anyway is to relax the spec in ADL 1.5 >> to allow both forms (and one day, probably we get rid of the URI >> form). Does that seem reasonable? > This would mean, then, a revision to section 8.3.1 of the AOM 1.5 > spec. Currently it says that ARCHETYPE_ONTOLOGY.constraint_bindings > contains DV_URI objects. > > - Peter > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > -- Ocean Informatics *Thomas Beale Chief Technology Officer, Ocean Informatics <http://www.oceaninformatics.com/>* Chair Architectural Review Board, /open/EHR Foundation <http://www.openehr.org/> Honorary Research Fellow, University College London <http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/> Chartered IT Professional Fellow, BCS, British Computer Society <http://www.bcs.org.uk/> Health IT blog <http://www.wolandscat.net/> * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110221/6de6fdf2/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ocean_full_small.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5828 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110221/6de6fdf2/attachment.jpg>
