On 18.02.2014 14:56, Bert Verhees wrote: > For example, in the OpenEHR, the idea was that CKM would serve the > world with archetypes, and there would be no need of a strong > archetypeId-system, because, all archetypes ever to be taken seriously > were in CKM. > Now it is recognized that this is not the case, and the proposition > regarding archetypeIds changed. Hi Bert, I think you would find a sufficient number of presentations and papers from me and others about managing archetypes from around the time when we started to work on CKM (2007) that would convince you that even then we were far more realistic as to say that the openEHR CKM will serve the world with archetypes. We were and still are just striving towards the (lofty) aim to get as much agreement/convergence as possible as well as unite the archetype development efforts where possible.
That a stronger/better/different archetype-id system is needed is true in my opinion - but a different story: for starters the archetype-id system predates CKM (or even any vision of it) by many years as far as I am aware. Sebastian
