Hi Pablo, yep, it's correct as it is - the model satisfies the use case where there can be more than on attestation. It was designed to deal with things like (from memory) a junior doc attesting, and later a more senior doc. These were clinical expert's requirements at the time, and someone like Dipak Kalra or Sam Heard would remember the exact situations it was designed for.
On the second one, could you please post a problem here <http://www.openehr.org/issues/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20SPECPR%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC>, so we don't forget it. thanks - thomas On 14/11/2014 19:09, pablo pazos wrote: > I'm reviewing the versioning aspects of the IM for a new course I'm > giving, and I'm not understanding _why we need more than one > attestation per ORIGINAL_VERSION_. > > A composition shouldn't be signed by just one person? > > Also, I found a bug: > 6.2.5. Contributions (in common_im page 41) > attestation of item: a new ATTESTATION is added to the attestations > list of an existing ORIGINAL_VERSION; > theATTESTATION.commit_audit.change_type is set to the code for > ?attestation?. > > Should be VERSION.commit_audit_change_type. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141114/9a7651d4/attachment.html>
