Hi Jan, William, Heather and others,
Just a thought about having governance metadata inside or outside the knowledge
artifact (e.g. archetype / DCM).
Having that metadata outside the artifact creates the necessity of a
centralized governance system, and having it inside the artifact doesn't. We
work in distributed environments where the centralized view doesn't fit. The
CKM is a proof of that, there is a global instance, an AUS instance and a SWE
instance, they share some archetypes and others are developed locally.
The 3rd scenario is having the metadata outside the knowledge artifacts, and
support a distributed governance environment. That is just an open door for
chaos, because it's impossible to keep track of all artifacts, all
modifications/versions and statuses, because each governance system will have
different metadata about the conceptually equal artifacts (they represents the
same concept).
What do you think?
--
Kind regards,
Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez
LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez
Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos
> From: talmon at maastrichtuniversity.nl
> To: openehr-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 08:36:12 +0100
> Subject: Re: openEHR-clinical Digest, Vol 11, Issue 3
>
>
> Apart from implementation issues and current compliance, the question to
> answer for this particular example is whether or not it is useful to know
> what the status of an artifact is? When someone sends me an archetype in ADL,
> it is relevant for me to know what the status of that archetype is. It will
> allow me to make an informed decision how to use (or not to use) that
> archetype. Although it may be in the email to which the archetype was send,
> later on, that email may get lost. So it is better to have it as meta data of
> the archetype. (At least from my perspective).
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20130107/23ac01bb/attachment-0001.html>
