Another meta-data requirement from CIMI

On 13/11/2014 18:43, David Moner wrote: > > > 2014-11-13 19:23 GMT+01:00 Thomas Beale > >: > > On 13/11/2014 16:50, David Moner wrote: >> As you say, this information should be somehow related to the >> "is_generated" flag. But if we consid

Another meta-data requirement from CIMI

We can't assume that an approved/published Intermountain model (to say something) automatically becomes a published archetype either. So we have a problem here. Which should be the default life cycle state of an auto-generated archetype? 2014-11-13 19:41 GMT+01:00 Thomas Beale : > On 13/11/2014

Another meta-data requirement from CIMI

2014-11-13 19:23 GMT+01:00 Thomas Beale : > On 13/11/2014 16:50, David Moner wrote: > > As you say, this information should be somehow related to the > "is_generated" flag. But if we consider that once a human user reviews the > archetype that flag is set to false, then I don't find it needed at

Another meta-data requirement from CIMI

On 13/11/2014 18:48, David Moner wrote: > We can't assume that an approved/published Intermountain model (to say > something) automatically becomes a published archetype either. So we > have a problem here. Which should be the default life cycle state of > an auto-generated archetype? I don't t

Another meta-data requirement from CIMI

I don't think so, but maybe we could use the release_candidate state, instead the draft one that I mentioned. 2014-11-13 19:32 GMT+01:00 Diego Bosc? : > Could "autogenerated" be a valid lifecycle state? > > 2014-11-13 19:23 GMT+01:00 Thomas Beale >: > > On 13/11/2014 16:50, David Moner wrote: >

Another meta-data requirement from CIMI

Could "autogenerated" be a valid lifecycle state? 2014-11-13 19:23 GMT+01:00 Thomas Beale : > On 13/11/2014 16:50, David Moner wrote: > > As you say, this information should be somehow related to the "is_generated" > flag. But if we consider that once a human user reviews the archetype that > flag

Another meta-data requirement from CIMI

On 13/11/2014 18:37, David Moner wrote: > I don't think so, but maybe we could use the release_candidate state, > instead the draft one that I mentioned. well I think either could be correct, depending on the circumstances. E.g. the latest openEHR/FHIR joint Adverse reaction archetype might go

Another meta-data requirement from CIMI

On 13/11/2014 16:50, David Moner wrote: > As you say, this information should be somehow related to the > "is_generated" flag. But if we consider that once a human user reviews > the archetype that flag is set to false, then I don't find it needed > at all. ah - but consider the situation in wh

Another meta-data requirement from CIMI

As you say, this information should be somehow related to the "is_generated" flag. But if we consider that once a human user reviews the archetype that flag is set to false, then I don't find it needed at all. What we would need instead is to define a good practice that says that when an archetype

Another meta-data requirement from CIMI

In CIMI, there are now some thousands of archetypes, 90% converted from Intermountain CEMs. We can start converting openEHR archetypes to CIMI form as well, for contribution to CIMI. To provide traceability, we probably are going to need a new meta-data item where some information about model