How about -ardvaark or
-awfullybadideatousethis I would be happy with -alpha. I know it is a technical term but it would not normally be visible to a clinical audience, who are going to see 'real' publication process states like draft, team review etc. -alpha sends the correct message to developers that this thing is risky! Ian On 1 October 2014 14:09, Sebastian Garde < sebastian.garde at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > > On 01.10.2014 14:55, Ian McNicoll wrote: > > Thanks Sebastian, > > You are correct, of course, there is a rule about this, but is just > about lexical matching e.g. -a is allowable and -a < -alpha. The labels > themselves have no meaning. > > Yes, not really that nice, is it - it just works coincidentally. > That's one reason I said I wouldn't want to use more than one. > > On that basis, perhaps -unstable should be renamed to something earlier > in the alphabet to fit with the matching rule i.e so that it comes before > -rc? > > Good point. > > On the other hand we do have a very specific meaning for rc, which is > that although this is still an archetype in development, it will obey the > versioning rules if it has to change. > > Still if we use -unstable and -rc, we cannot claim to fully embrace the > SemVer rules for precendence. > Sebastian > > Ian > > > > On 1 October 2014 13:40, Sebastian Garde < > sebastian.garde at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > >> >> On 01.10.2014 14:04, Shinji KOBAYASHI wrote: >> >> Hi Ian, >> >> I prefer V0, because it would be easier to adopt for other developers >> who do not know openEHR well. >> For parser implementation, 1.0.0-unstable is not a good design, >> because it is not clear that which is the later release amongs, >> unstable, testing, pre-release, release-candidate, draft, etc... >> >> Actually, this is clearly defined by SemVer, see rule 11: >> 1.0.0-alpha < 1.0.0-alpha.1 < 1.0.0-alpha.beta < 1.0.0-beta < >> 1.0.0-beta.2 < 1.0.0-beta.11 < 1.0.0-rc.1 < 1.0.0. >> But I don't think we would usually want to do this at all for unstable >> archetypes. >> They are just unstable, no guarantee whatsoever. >> If you want to have a specific one, you can always use the unique build >> id for that. >> Sebastian >> >> I would suggest 0.9.9 instead of 1.0.0-unstable. We can revise the >> revision 0.9.9 after it released, to 0.9.9.9. or 0.9.9.99. >> >> Shinji >> >> 2014-10-01 19:23 GMT+09:00 Ian McNicoll <ian at mcmi.co.uk> <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-technical mailing listopenEHR-technical at >> lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing listopenEHR-technical at >> lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org >> >> >> -- >> >> *Dr. Sebastian Garde* >> *Dr. sc. hum., Dipl.-Inform. Med, FACHI* >> Ocean Informatics >> >> Skype: gardeseb >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-clinical mailing list >> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org >> >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org >> > > > > -- > Dr Ian McNicoll > office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 > mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 > skype ianmcnicoll > ian at freshehr.com > > Clinical modelling consultant freshEHR > Director openEHR Foundation > Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL > BCS Primary Health Care www.phcsg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing listopenEHR-technical at > lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > > -- > > *Dr. Sebastian Garde* > *Dr. sc. hum., Dipl.-Inform. Med, FACHI* > Ocean Informatics > > Skype: gardeseb > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > -- Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian at freshehr.com Clinical modelling consultant freshEHR Director openEHR Foundation Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL BCS Primary Health Care www.phcsg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141001/2123e600/attachment-0001.html>
