2014-11-13 19:23 GMT+01:00 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>:
> On 13/11/2014 16:50, David Moner wrote: > > As you say, this information should be somehow related to the > "is_generated" flag. But if we consider that once a human user reviews the > archetype that flag is set to false, then I don't find it needed at all. > > > ah - but consider the situation in which the generation step is done > multiple times, over a period of time. I was in this situation with my > internal 1.4 => 1.5 (now => 2.0) generator, where it took some time to get > the converter right. And Patrick Langford is iteratively getting the > Intermountain converter right over a period of some months. > > The ADL WB always looks at that flag to know what to do. If you right > click on an archetype in the left side explorer, and do 'Edit', the GUI > editor (alpha for the moment, but functionally the same concept as the > LinkEHR editor) starts. If the user actually makes any changes and commits > them, the AWB removes the is_generated flag. Then a later round of import > generation can look at it, and not overwrite this particular archetype, and > instead generate a warning (or it could try to do a merge, or..). So I > think it's needed. > > Yes, I understand the process. What I tried to propose was that, if we add that import information section, the generated flag could be part of it, instead having it as a standalone reserved word in the header (just an idea to explore). And that's why I also support adding the import information as a proper, standalone section. -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia - 46022 (Espa?a) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141113/ca813d0c/attachment-0001.html>
