Hello,
With the latest Demographic archetypes updates on the CKM I think we
have to be careful with archetype versioning. The new archetypes seem
quite different of the ones that were uploaded some time ago. They are
different on structure but the version of the archetype has not been
improved
/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110427/ab4901c4/attachment.html
So do you mean that only 23 (everything that is not draft) of the
current 270 archetypes on the CKM are 'safe' to be used? Everything
else could be completely changed in the next revision of the draft :(
2011/4/27 Ian McNicoll Ian.McNicoll at oceaninformatics.com:
Hi Diego,
For those who are
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110427/cf290f9a/attachment.html
I am OK with all that, my only problem is that new iterations should
make new versions if changes are enough (even in draft status). If not
all current projects using archetypes will be just wrong with the
'official' current archetype in CKM
The situation of two incompatible archetypes with the
...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110427/c7a85f82/attachment.html
/20110427/c8cab272/attachment.html
attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110427/61a8d1ae/attachment.html
I still don't see the problem
If we wait until an archetype is published to care about versions then
you will have v2 or v3 archetypes as much, which in my opinion breaks
completely versioning purpose. What is the problem with having a v27
archetype? Is it less pretty?
2011/4/27 Ian McNicoll
The problem is that ontologically v1 is not actually a version identifier,
it is more like an axis of a concept ID, v1 and v2 have different concepts
although they represent the same concept domain (i.e. two different
representations of the same concept). The name of this axis is an
unfortunate
On 27/04/2011 06:28, Diego Bosc? wrote:
I am OK with all that, my only problem is that new iterations should
make new versions if changes are enough (even in draft status). If not
all current projects using archetypes will be just wrong with the
'official' current archetype in CKM
The
On 27/04/2011 10:32, Ian McNicoll wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for this, though I think these are still draft specifications.
I had some input into that document but with experience I am not sure
the revision rules really work for .v0 archetypes though the .v0 idea
itself is useful. The
12 matches
Mail list logo
