...or if it is for an archetype, you can raise a Change Request directly for that archetype on CKM, e.g. for the Patient name archetype here: http://openehr.org/ckm/#showArchetype_1013.1.477_CHANGEREQUESTS
Regards Sebastian From: openEHR-technical [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: Freitag, 27. November 2015 10:28 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Party-actor-folder relationships in hierarchy If people want specific changes to the specifications, please raise a Problem Report in the usual place<https://openehr.atlassian.net/projects/SPECPR/issues/SPECPR-132?filter=allopenissues>. Otherwise we don't know what the specific shortcomings are. - thomas On 27/11/2015 09:02, Bert Verhees wrote: On 27-11-15 09:56, Dmitry Baranov wrote: I agree that demographic details can be expressed via archetypes. Actors/Participation/Names etc are elaborated well in HL7 CDA spec, by the way That is a point, why is it not like that in OpenEHR or EN13606? _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org --
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
