2014-10-01 15:35 GMT+02:00 Sebastian Iancu <sebastian at code24.nl>: > Dear all, > > I'm surprise to see such a low analysis of the impact of changing v1 to v0 > of the existing CKM archetypes. > Even though they are not 'published', or are in logical 'draft' mode, they > were conformant to openEHR standards for at least past 5 years or so. Some > of them are used already in production environments for more than 2-3 years > (at least in our case). > Changing them now on CKM will break logical binding with already existing > production data. This cost has to be eventually supported by industry > implementers, and I can assure you this is not trivial, and it is giving > the impression that openEHR standard is not reliable/stable enough. > > Sebastian,
Although you are for sure right in your worries, that doesn't mean that current archetypes managed in CKM are safer. For many years most of the current v1 archetypes in CKM where in draft and that meant that they have been changing without changing their id. You can protect your systems if you check archetype correspondences not only by the archetype id but using something else such as their hash code. And in that case, changing to v0 should not mean any difference or additional problem. David -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmoner Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia - 46022 (Espa?a) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141001/fc487bf9/attachment.html>
