Hi Thomas, Looking good. I think we do need to think of adding 'version_id to each Translation to help developers know which original language version/revision has been used to create the translation. This was something that Bert mentioned.
Ian On 27 January 2014 13:11, Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > > Following conversations with Ian McNicoll and others working on the > archetype meta-data question, I have posted a possible revised model > 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. > > 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 -- Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com ian at mcmi.co.uk Clinical Analyst Ocean Informatics Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, University College London openEHR Archetype Editorial Group Member BCS Primary Health Care SG Group www.phcsg.org / BCS Health Scotland
