On 15/11/2014 10:17, Gerard Freriks wrote: > I prefer to deal in the Reference Model with the documentation and > archiving aspects. > Any Composition needs to be signed, irrespective of the content. > And that signing on occasion is by multiple persons, in different roles. > > When specific parts of the data as defined by the Composition need to > be signed-oof, than that is a different matter. > > And signing off the Composition as artefact (Archetype) is a different > matter again.
Right - signing / attesting is an RM matter for the reasons Ian & Gerard have mentioned. And Dipak has provided some typical clinical reasons for it. Note that the openEHR attestation, while attached to the whole Composition does allow indicating specific bits of the Composition - see the model here <http://www.openehr.org/local/releases/1.0.1/uml/Browsable/_9_5_1_76d0249_1140169202660_257304_813Report.html>. I personally think have always thought this is a bad idea, because in the human world, people attest documents or screens - things that function as a whole statement, not bits and pieces. But we put it in anyway, to fit in with 13606, and I could of course be proved wrong in the future. So the option is there. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141115/7e93bcd4/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: jhggghjg.png Type: image/png Size: 162718 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141115/7e93bcd4/attachment-0001.png>
