On 09/07/2015 12:53, Erik Sundvall wrote:
Hi!
Is a new type of VERSION.lifecycle_state the best to solve the
described use-case? Won't the "correcting a typo change" or "we forgot
a thing" use-cases etc still always be there even for things written
as binding contracts?
Is it perhaps enough to have the "final" plan fixed/fixated by
applying digital signatures on the VERSION using the ATTESTATION
<http://www.openehr.org/releases/trunk/UML/#Architecture___18_1_83e026d_1433773264996_418417_8398>
class, thus marking the "contractual agreement" with digital
signatures so that nothing be changed without the system (and/or
users) noticing it.
this would be my solution as well.
The application can then, for the type of change-sensitive documents
described by Sebastian, perform signature checks and show warnings or
refuse to update info unless the change is signed by the same persons
or organisations that signed the previously signed version.
To me it seems natural that binding contracts and signatures belong
together.
Heath's use-case "something to indicate a version was moved distinct
from deleted" won't be solved by signatures though, so
https://openehr.atlassian.net/browse/SPECPR-83 is still valid.
agree
- thomas
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
