Just a couple of comments: Do really is_template & is_overlay need to be mandatory? I would say that they can be optional if you are dealing with archetypes (assuming that all archetypes are just archetypes by default). What does exactly 'is_overlay' refers to?
Also, I think that you could argue that version_status is more suitable to be placed into the resource_description instead of where it is now. 2014-01-27 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > > Following conversations with Ian McNicoll and others working on the > archetype meta-data question, I have posted a possible revised > model<http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/Knowledge+Artefact+Meta-data>containing > the following changes to the current one: > > - copyright has been moved to the non-translated top-level description > - license has been added to the description > - custodian_namespace has been added to the description > - custodian_organisation has been added to the description > > > We will need to decide on the 'revision/validation date' concept and add > that in. > > If you just want the UML diagram, here it > is<http://www.openehr.org/wiki/download/attachments/45645905/archetype_meta_data_UML.png?version=1&modificationDate=1390827799466&api=v2> > . > > I am not personally working on these properties, but I would think we are > not far away from a model that will work seamlessly for openEHR and 13606. > > - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140127/c195e41a/attachment.html>
