Hi all, Apologies for cross-posting in both clinical and technical but this does neatly cross that divide.
We are getting close in CKM to implementing the ADL1.5 archetype naming /versioning rules proposed at *http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/ADL/Knowledge+Artefact+Identification* <http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/ADL/Knowledge+Artefact+Identification> mostly by adding the metadata to the ADL other_details section, which means we can carry the information in ADL 1.4 archetypes without disturbing current systems. These latest proposals are now very much in line with the de-facto standard SemVer 2.0 see http://semver.org which allows major revision minor revision patch build but one of the questions which remains controversial is whether to support a major revision of V0 (as allowed in SemVer). In Semver, V0 is allowed for very immature ?first draft? semantic artefacts/APIs prior to initial release but SemVer allows for any revision to appended with a pre-release modifier e.g. v2.0.0-alpha or v1.0.0-unstable This is recognised as meaning that the artefact is unstable and the version numbering cannot be relied on e.g to assert backward compatibility. In that sense v0.0.0 and v1.0.0-unstable are identical in terms of their ?stability? and lack of commitment to the versioning rules. So the question for us in the openEHR world is whether tooling should support v0.0.0, or simply use v1.0.0-unstable V0 Advantages 1. The archetype is clearly marked as immature 2. Full compliance with SemVer 3. Supported in current test build of CKM V0 Disadvantages 1. Tooling e.g Archetype Editor (actually ADL Parser) needs to change to support V0 2. Add another layer of complexity to the archetype naming/versioning rules 3. Question arises of whether / if to convert current draft V1 CKM archetypes to V0 with overhead of explanation to current users. 4. Adds complexity where V0 archetypes are being used within templates, when the archetype is published and needs to be updated to V1 within these templates. V1- Advantages 1. Compliant with SemVer 2. Does not need any changes to Archetype Editor. 3. Easier transition between draft and publication states when used within templates i.e does not need V0->v1 change V1- Disadvantages 1. Does not so clearly differentiate ?first draft? archetype from others Before a final decision is made, we are interested in feedback from the community on whether V0 should be implemented in CKM and other openEHR tools, although in practice V1- will do an identical job in terms of version number governance. Regards, Ian McNicoll Heather Leslie Sebastian Garde Thomas Beale -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141001/c3092858/attachment.html>
