Hi William, I would agree that some sort of versioning/ rollback facility is a definite requirement. The only issue is whether this is best achieved within the Archetype Editor itself, or by a separate, purpose designed utility.
As Richard and Karsten have suggested, Subversion has proved an excellent tool for this purpose and the NHS have their version management and configuration working extremely well. Richard, I am sure there would be considerable interest in knowing more about the CfH/NHS approach. One of the downsides to Subversion is the need to install and configure the server software, which though not particularly difficult, does require some technical skills. I have successfully used Unfuddle www.unfuddle.com for personal and professional hosted Subversion support. There are both low-cost and no-cost options available. This is particularly valuable for team-based modelling. The subversion Tortoise client is easy to use and once a few simple operational rules are estabished, it is pretty easy for users to pick up the various update and commit operations required. An alternative approach is used by the Clinical Knowledge Manager http://www.openehr.org/knowledge/ where the revisioning and re-versioning and version control is handled internally, though actual archetype editing is currently handed off to the archetype editor via a download/checkout process There is quite a bit of work being done on clarifying other governance requirements, in particular publisher identifiiers and revision numbers (which are not currently supported by the archetype editor) and this should be coming out quite soon. There is also an interesting philosophical question! Part of the reason for the lack of inbuilt version management is that archetypes can be seen as software artefacts i.e programming code, gnerally now managed by within a version control environment, as opposed to human requirements documents, which tend to have support for the version within the filename/file itself. The strength of the archetype approach is that they are BOTH software artefacts AND human information requirements documents, and perhaps we need to reflect this duality in our approach to version control. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian at mcmi.co.uk Clinical Analyst - Ocean Informatics ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Member of BCS Primary Health Care Specialist Group ? www.phcsg.org 2008/11/28 Richard Kavanagh (NHS Connecting for Health) < richard.kavanagh at nhs.net> > A combination of a good version management tool and an internal > configuration management policy works well for us, I would be happy to > discuss this with others. > > We use subversion as our version management tool and find it indispensible > for us.. I would be interested to hear what other archetype/template authors > use for their configuration management. > > regards > Richard Kavanagh > Head of Interoperability Specifications > Data Standards and Products > NHS Connecting for Health > Tel : +44 (0)113 397 4398 > Mob : +44 (0)7770 644449 > Richard.Kavanagh at nhs.net > www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk > > NHS Connecting for Health supports the NHS in providing better, safer care > by delivering computer systems and services which improve the way patient > information is stored and accessed. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto: > openehr-clinical-bounces at openehr.org] *On Behalf Of * > Williamtfgoossen at cs.com > *Sent:* 28 November 2008 08:38 > *To:* openehr-clinical at openehr.org > *Subject:* poor version management in archetype editor > > Dear all, > > Currently underway in making archetypes using the Ocean archetype editor we > encounter a major flaw in the tool. > > It is impossible to maintain version management, which leads to many > inconsistencies in the archetypes. > > Also, while participating in the review of archetypes such as blood > pressure, the old (before review) and the new (after review) have the same > version. > > I think this is a very urgent matter to solve, otherwise we will end up > with heaps of archetypes on the same subject that are different. > > In particular a requirement is that an author, while developing, is able to > have a versioning structure that allows going back to earlier versions, or > work on improvements while not changing an existing version directly. > > In other words: missing versioning is making it hard to produce archetypes. > > > Sincerely yours, > > dr. William TF Goossen > director > Results 4 Care b.v. > De Stinse 15 > 3823 VM Amersfoort > the Netherlands > email: Results4Care at cs.com > phone + 31654614458 > fax +3133 2570169 > www.results4care.nl > Dutch Chamber of Commerce number: 32133713 > *********************************************************************** > This message may contain confidential and privileged information. > If you are not the intended recipient you should not disclose, copy > or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance > on its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. > Please inform the sender that this message has gone astray before > deleting it. Thank you. > > 2008 marks the 60th anniversary of the NHS. It's an opportunity to pay > tribute to the NHS staff and volunteers who help shape the service, and > celebrate their achievements. > > If you work for the NHS and would like an NHSmail email account, go > to: www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/nhsmail > *********************************************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20081128/16c1d88c/attachment.html>
