I tested v0 with LinkEHR editor and works just fine. I think that 'v1.0.0-unstable' has additional problems, such as deciding which words are allowed (e.g 'unstable', 'firstdraft', 'alpha', etc.), which means that tools have to be modified anyway. Arguably, is better to widen a range than to parse specific strings which end changing in the end.
Also, adding this breaks all current v1 slots (related to my last question to the list) v0 is also fully compliant with SemVer, which means that in theory archetype identifiers won't need to be changed when we move to ADL1.5 (going with v1-unestable will need another change in the future) 2014-10-01 12:23 GMT+02:00 Ian McNicoll <ian at mcmi.co.uk>: > > 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 > > 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
