On 13/11/2014 09:10, Heather Leslie wrote: > > It is actually relevant to have this information in the ?Use? as it is > a reasonable place to look to see constraints on use and how it should > be implemented in systems. > > No reason why it can?t be in a dedicated/purpose-built place as well. >
right - that's a good point because there may be some clinically relevant statement to make, especially like in the Barthel case. But I believe there needs to be an easily findable legal form of statement that recognises each 3rd party IP implicated in the archetype - and I think that the latter statements are more likely to be legal-ish words + URLs. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141113/2c41ae3f/attachment.html>
