Archetype meta-data - moving foward
I have added a license attribute. An archetype can need both a copyright and the applicable license. David 2013/5/3 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com On 03/05/2013 11:28, Diego Bosc? wrote: By the way, we should use the momentum to also revamp the available metadata. A few ideas: - Move 'copyright' from language specific information to general metadata (It's not being really translated at the moment). - Move 'references' from other_details to general metadata (It's important enough IMHO). - Information about date of validation, validity time and who validated it. - RM version this archetype was based on. - etc. Personally I would agree with all of the above. I have already added the rm_release to the ARCHETYPE class now in the AOM (not yet pushed up), but for the others, I suggest we try to create a wider discussion to do this exercise with a small amount of discipline, but still be in a crowd-sourcing mode (is that possible ;-) To that end, I added a child page to the Knowledge Artefact Identification pagehttp://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/Development+and+Governance+of+Knowledge+Artefacts, herehttp://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/Knowledge+Artefact+Meta-data, dedicated to meta-data. I added some tables where we can potentially review the current model and propose changes. If people think this isn't sufficiently detailed, feel free to rework it in another way. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130506/a190fa03/attachment.html
Archetype meta-data - moving foward
In fact, 'license' could be translated, but translating 'copyright' makes less sense 2013/5/6 David Moner damoca at gmail.com: I have added a license attribute. An archetype can need both a copyright and the applicable license. David 2013/5/3 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com On 03/05/2013 11:28, Diego Bosc? wrote: By the way, we should use the momentum to also revamp the available metadata. A few ideas: - Move 'copyright' from language specific information to general metadata (It's not being really translated at the moment). - Move 'references' from other_details to general metadata (It's important enough IMHO). - Information about date of validation, validity time and who validated it. - RM version this archetype was based on. - etc. Personally I would agree with all of the above. I have already added the rm_release to the ARCHETYPE class now in the AOM (not yet pushed up), but for the others, I suggest we try to create a wider discussion to do this exercise with a small amount of discipline, but still be in a crowd-sourcing mode (is that possible ;-) To that end, I added a child page to the Knowledge Artefact Identification page, here, dedicated to meta-data. I added some tables where we can potentially review the current model and propose changes. If people think this isn't sufficiently detailed, feel free to rework it in another way. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
Archetype meta-data - moving foward
On 06/05/2013 10:47, Diego Bosc? wrote: In fact, 'license' could be translated, but translating 'copyright' makes less sense Clearly we are not in the business of creating translations of things like the CC licenses ourselves, which is the license of archetypes (at least openEHR ones). We would need to rely on those ones that are created by creativecommons.org community. This CC page http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Translate talks about translating licences. It's not obvious to me on a brief look, but I would expect that for any given canonical license URL like http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ to have equivalents in other languages like http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/es for Spanish etc. I also suspect that for a CC (and other) license in English language, and with 'international' as the jurisdiction, that English is actually the official language of the license, for all users, on the assumption that any court that might process a case based on one of these licenses would be an international court and have English as its working language (like the Hague ICC does). The only use of translations - I think - is to just enable non-EN maternal language users to more easily understand the license. So we either treat the license field as a non-translated field and just include canonical (EN) URL, and assume the user will go and find the translation if they need one - I think this will be easier. If we treat it as a translatable field, then we probably have to figure out a correct URL for each translation, which might just be the 'en' one for languages in which the CC license is not yet available. This seems an annoyance with no real gain. - thomas -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130506/b00885e1/attachment.html
openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 15, Issue 8
Yes a copyright, a license, and sometimes terms of use. Vriendelijke groet, William Goossen Verzonden met mijn Winphone Nokia Lumia 800 -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: openehr-technical-request at lists.openehr.org Verzonden: 6-5-2013 18:02 Aan: openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Onderwerp: openEHR-technical Digest, Vol 15, Issue 8 Send openEHR-technical mailing list submissions to openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to openehr-technical-request at lists.openehr.org You can reach the person managing the list at openehr-technical-owner at lists.openehr.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of openEHR-technical digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Archetype meta-data - moving foward (David Moner) 2. Re: Archetype meta-data - moving foward (Diego Bosc?) 3. Re: Archetype meta-data - moving foward (Thomas Beale) -- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 11:36:44 +0200 From: David Moner dam...@gmail.com To: For openEHR technical discussions openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Archetype meta-data - moving foward Message-ID: CAPfA0Q_QP_wReUk+sj8PxVnL_X-ANmZ_KTg-oa-7pw4rExtAhg at mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I have added a license attribute. An archetype can need both a copyright and the applicable license. David 2013/5/3 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com On 03/05/2013 11:28, Diego Bosc? wrote: By the way, we should use the momentum to also revamp the available metadata. A few ideas: - Move 'copyright' from language specific information to general metadata (It's not being really translated at the moment). - Move 'references' from other_details to general metadata (It's important enough IMHO). - Information about date of validation, validity time and who validated it. - RM version this archetype was based on. - etc. Personally I would agree with all of the above. I have already added the rm_release to the ARCHETYPE class now in the AOM (not yet pushed up), but for the others, I suggest we try to create a wider discussion to do this exercise with a small amount of discipline, but still be in a crowd-sourcing mode (is that possible ;-) To that end, I added a child page to the Knowledge Artefact Identification pagehttp://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/Development+and+Governance+of+Knowledge+Artefacts, herehttp://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/Knowledge+Artefact+Meta-data, dedicated to meta-data. I added some tables where we can potentially review the current model and propose changes. If people think this isn't sufficiently detailed, feel free to rework it in another way. - thomas ___ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- David Moner Cano Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME Instituto ITACA http://www.ibime.upv.es Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV) Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130506/a190fa03/attachment-0001.html -- Message: 2 Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 11:47:46 +0200 From: Diego Bosc? yamp...@gmail.com To: For openEHR technical discussions openehr-technical at lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: Archetype meta-data - moving foward Message-ID: CAFx8UwC5KmfbDqCxg8NCpfW3UJ9Jy4DCfhjfCj1QkrbRm3TKuQ at mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 In fact, 'license' could be translated, but translating 'copyright' makes less sense 2013/5/6 David Moner damoca at gmail.com: I have added a license attribute. An archetype can need both a copyright and the applicable license. David 2013/5/3 Thomas Beale thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com On 03/05/2013 11:28, Diego Bosc? wrote: By the way, we should use the momentum to also revamp the available metadata. A few ideas: - Move 'copyright' from language specific information to general metadata (It's not being really translated at the moment). - Move 'references' from other_details to general metadata (It's important enough IMHO). - Information about date of validation, validity time and who validated it. - RM version this archetype was based on. - etc. Personally I would agree with all of the above. I have already added the rm_release to the ARCHETYPE class now in the AOM (not yet pushed up), but for the others, I suggest we
