On 21/06/2011 10:04, Heather Leslie wrote:
>
> Hi Erik, Thomas,
>
> I think we need to address three issues separately here. The first is
> the archetype identification in CKM; the second is use of the draft
> archetypes and the third, the apparent lack of progress of archetype
> publication in the openEHR CKM.
>
> Archetype identification is ultimately a technical issue and one in
> which I normally don't have an opinion. Clearly it is useful from an
> implementation point of view to have unique IDs for each archetype and
> be able to determine diffs etc. However, from a non-technical point of
> view I believe that it is extremely helpful to clearly delineate
> between early/alpha/raw models and the mature ones that have been
> published, more than just by a 'status' or icon, although we need
> these too.
>
> I'm increasingly of the opinion that it will be helpful to have a
> common understanding that the first published version of an archetype
> in CKM is always known as v1.0, such that if we eventually find we are
> using v4.x we (the non-technical) can easily infer that this is a
> published archetype that has undergone 3 major updates. This is very
> valuable to the non-techies who will be using CKM. Otherwise we run
> the risk of having a release set that will contain wildly disparate
> version numbers and will infer no idea of the state/maturity of the
> archetypes
>
> To be honest, how we version the pre-published, currently known as
> 'draft' archetypes doesn't worry me -- v0.x seems sensible in light of
> the previous statements but if you have a better way to approach it,
> I'm cool with that.
>
so I think this is compatible with:
* a v0 rule that says start at v0.n.m, and go to v1.x.y on first
'publication'
* a lifecycle set of states whose names we still need to agree on, but
could be something like:
o alpha, beta, published, obsolete, superseded
* the semver.org rules, which would allow versions like v0.0.1 but
also v1.0.4beta
I will look at updating the current openEHR artefact specification to
reflect this.
- thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110711/5f2663ae/attachment.html>
