On 03/05/2013 11:28, Diego Bosc? wrote: > By the way, we should use the momentum to also revamp the available > metadata. A few ideas: > > - Move 'copyright' from language specific information to general > metadata (It's not being really translated at the moment). > - Move 'references' from other_details to general metadata (It's > important enough IMHO). > - Information about date of validation, validity time and who validated it. > - RM version this archetype was based on. > - etc. >
Personally I would agree with all of the above. I have already added the rm_release to the ARCHETYPE class now in the AOM (not yet pushed up), but for the others, I suggest we try to create a wider discussion to do this exercise with a small amount of discipline, but still be in a crowd-sourcing mode (is that possible ;-) To that end, I added a child page to the Knowledge Artefact Identification page <http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/Development+and+Governance+of+Knowledge+Artefacts>, here <http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/Knowledge+Artefact+Meta-data>, dedicated to meta-data. I added some tables where we can potentially review the current model and propose changes. If people think this isn't sufficiently detailed, feel free to rework it in another way. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130503/bce7c26b/attachment-0001.html>
