Adding some thoughts below. On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Thomas Beale <[email protected]> wrote: > > 4. A.26: “Does the maintenance organisation for the technical > specification or standard have sufficient finances and resources to be sure > of freedom from short- to medium-term threats?” > > · Unable to find any info about this. > > > What does the question mean? > > Most SEC members are financed by their "home" organisations where thay are employed, for example EHR systems providers (vendors/projects) and healthcare organizations. It is in the interest of those organizations to stay up to date and also to keep the openEHR specifications updated. Most work is done online and in teleconferences (cheap). Server resources etc are financed by the openEHR foundation that has recurring membership incomes.
So yes, there is enough resources to keep things going at current pace. > 5. A.27: “Does the technical specification or standard have a > defined policy for version management?” > > · The change process has a description about version numbering, but > we can’t find anything about handling different versions, compatibility, > etc. > > > Eveything is versioned in openEHR; the release strategy > <http://www.openehr.org/programs/specification/releasestrategy>describes > the rules of versions assignment to releases. Other than that, we would > need to know the specific question to be able to answer better. > Additionally, most openEHR artifacts follow http://semver.org/ > 7. A.48: “Does the technical specification or standard address > backward compatibility with previous versions?” > > · Can’t find any info about this on the web pages. > > > see the above link to release strategy. > Backwards compatibility for clinical content (already stored EHR data) is one of openEHRs real strengths. Breaking changes to the RM (technical reference model) level are uncommon (and migration strategies are usually provided for any such changes). The more frequent hanges at the AM level (archetypes and templates) do not break the readability of content based on previous archetypes etc (since the RM and everything built on the RM stays the same). Also the maximal-dataset approach and broad clinical review used for international archetyping also produces a lower number of surprising changes in implemented systems due to reduction of the, in other approaches more commonly occuring, finding of: "Ouch, I didn't consider that less common usecase when designing my initial datamodel". Best regards, Erik Sundvall Ph.D. Medical Informatics. Information Architect. Tel: +46-72-524 54 55 (or 010-1036252 in Sweden) Region Östergötland: [email protected] (previously lio.se ) http://www.regionostergotland.se/cmit/ Linköping University: [email protected], http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
