Bert,
my comments relate to software only, contributed by companies and other
organisations at their own development expense.
It has nothing to do with specifications, nor specification-related
computational artefacts (grammars, XSDs, and the like). These are all
issued by the foundation,
On 09-09-15 10:24, Thomas Beale wrote:
I hope this is clearer.
- thomas
It sure is.
I totally agree.
Bert
___
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org
On 09-09-15 04:20, Thomas Beale wrote:
On 08/09/2015 21:55, Erik Sundvall wrote:
Hi!
ND on the specification documents is not a big or urgent problem if
there are Apace 2 licenced computable artifacts
like UML-files/descriptions of all classes, ADL/AQL grammars, openEHR
term
Bert,
I fail to see the origin of any ambiguity from within openEHR. The
specifications have been free and open for 15 years, since 2000 (or soon
thereafter, since some were issued around 2002/2003 for the first time,
and some later). This has always been clearly stated even in the old
Hi Sebastian
I've tested a dozen or so archetypes from various CKMs, (some with and
some without), and all the XML downloads verify against the schema.
Thanks very much for the fix
Dave Barnet
From: Sebastian Garde [mailto:sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com]
Sent: Tue 08/09/2015 15:33
To:
5 matches
Mail list logo