Hi Ian, Personally I think V0 has significant costs in exchange for not so significant benefits. Semver compatibility would be nice, but nice is not worth the implementation cost for parser etc here. I don't know if V0 support would break things deep down in actual openEHR implementations but even that may be a possibility if there is a reg-ex sitting in some code that expects v1 as the starting point. The features in adl 1.5 would probably help provide a workaround to express the semantics that would otherwise be expressed with V0
Best regards Seref On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Ian McNicoll <ian at mcmi.co.uk> wrote: > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141001/cb621a28/attachment.html>
