Hi all,
There are (at least) three artefact production processes:
- one for the author('s) designing unripe artefacts. This is the initial
design, authoring phase.
- one for public, more ripe, draft artifacts that are shared with others. This
is the reviewing, QA, phase.
- one for active published artifacts, This is 'official' published artifact
phase.
Each of these processes has their own 'state model', meta-data attributes,
rules, etc, that must be managed by any artifact repository via a standardized
interface.
GF
Gerard Freriks
+31 620347088
gfrer at luna.nl
On 8 sep. 2011, at 11:14, Diego Bosc? wrote:
> As I said before, I am perfectly fine with archetypes being volatile,
> unstable, and whatever you want. What I don't like is archetypes
> disappearing into the 'limbo'. Ignoring the versioning may be OK when
> you are just completing the archetype (missing terms, etc.), but
> surely is not OK for archetypes with big structural changes (even if
> they are draft).
> I'm not telling you to show it in the same way that current 'up to
> date' archetypes. Hide it to most users, mark it obsolete, deprecated,
> put a red flag... there are a lot of alternatives. Having the obsolete
> archetypes available also helps you to understand why the new version
> was needed on the first place.
>
> I don't really see the point of leaving the drafts out of the
> versioning process (why don't they have any 'official' status in the
> first place? incomplete concepts are still concepts). Archetype status
> (drafts, published, team review, etc.) and versioning (SemVer?) should
> be two completely separated things
>
> There is another thing I think I haven't quite understand from your
> post. Is 'editing' process made by reviewers or is an additional
> process to the 'review' process made by a team of editors? If the
> editors are all the reviewers (currently more than 200 regarding CKM
> statistics) then the real challenge is to involve them (as seems like
> most of them are inactive users)
>
> Diego
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110909/469ea466/attachment.html>
