On 15/11/2014 10:17, Gerard Freriks wrote:
> I prefer to deal in the Reference Model with the documentation and
> archiving aspects.
> Any Composition needs to be signed, irrespective of the content.
> And that signing on occasion is by multiple persons, in different roles.
>
> When specific parts
I prefer to deal in the Reference Model with the documentation and archiving
aspects.
Any Composition needs to be signed, irrespective of the content.
And that signing on occasion is by multiple persons, in different roles.
When specific parts of the data as defined by the Composition need to be
doc. These
>> were clinical expert's requirements at the time, and someone like Dipak
>> Kalra or Sam Heard would remember the exact situations it was designed for.
>>
>> On the second one, could you please post a problem
>> here<http://www.openehr.org
; ORIGINAL_VERSION.
>
> A composition shouldn't be signed by just one person?
>
> Also, I found a bug:
> 6.2.5. Contributions (in common_im page 41)
> attestation of item: a new ATTESTATION is added to the attestations list of
> an existing ORIGINAL_VERSION; the ATTESTATION.commit_audit.change_type is set
> to the code for ?attestation?.
>
> Should be VERSION.commit_audit_change_type.
>
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org<mailto:openEHR-technical at
> lists.openehr.org>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141115/c4795a94/attachment.html>
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
> --
>
> End of openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 33, Issue 23
> *
4 matches
Mail list logo
