Adding to what was commented, there is a gap between implementers and the CKM/modeling process.
+ implementers will use any archetype, even drafts, that are published on the CKM, because those might match the requirements, so for that implementer the archetype might be OK. + implementers can't approve archetypes to move from draft to published, can make suggestions to improve them, but not change their status. + the modeling process allows those draft archetypes to change anytime in any way, generating potential incompatibilities with the revisions downloaded by implementers, and that can only be checked manually, by each implementer, for each modified archetype. I did this and could take a whole day to review an archetype and analyze incompatibilities. + for implementers is difficult to track archetypes they (we) are using, to see when an archetype that we use changes and compare to find potential incompatibilities. Current tools allow to follow an archetype and be notified by email when changes are done, and the CKM has a compare tool, but is all a manual process. An ideal scenario would be to have a record of the archetypes someone is using, and when a new revision is published, run the diff between that and the revision the implementer is using, and notify of possible incompatibilities, that way we can know exactly what's wrong and fix accordingly. Another point is that AFAIK current clinical modelers are voluntary, which I think the Foundation should consider funding to have more archetypes reviewed and published, than having most in draft. There is some money on the Foundation, let's use it to help the community, and also give something back to our core clinical modelers. We need a dedicated team for these things. On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 2:11 AM Dileep V S <dil...@healthelife.in> wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for all the responses. It has helped me clear a couple of of > things that need to be keep in mind while using resources from OpenEHR CKM. > Just to summarize, > > 1. Archetypes in v0 are to be treated as initial suggestions and can > change anytime and without any pattern. Published ones from v1 are more > stable and the changes managed better. > 2. Using V0 is at one's own risk and so keeping a local copy would be > advisable > 3. CKM allows viewing and comparing version history using archetype > history > > The above raises some additional questions > > 1. What are the specific steps/links to download older version of > archetypes from the CKM. The archetype history allows comparison between > versions. But I could not find any link to view/download older versions. > 2. Majority of the archetypes in CKM are unpublished v0 versions. So > it is difficult to build any meaningful CDR currently using only published > archetypes. What will be the best strategy to keep moving forward with > creating real solutions while keeping the spirit of OpenEHR relevant. > 3. Managing copies of the archetypes that are used separately by > different users is bound to create fragmented schema across openEHR > compliant CDRs, thereby defeating the fundamental premise of interoperable > schema among OpenEHR CDRs. > > regards > Dileep V S > *Founder* > HealtheLife Ventures LLP > m: +91 9632888113 > a: 106, Innovation Centre, IIIT, Electronics City, Bangalore 560100 > w: <http://ayushehr.com>ehr.network, <http://ehr.network>ayushehr.com > <http://ayushehr.com> e: dil...@healthelife.in > > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 2:15 AM Sebastian Garde < > sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> >> >> The v1 to v0 migration was a once off thing that was decided to be the >> best for never before published archetypes. >> >> I’ve never been a big fan of v0 because of the all the complications it >> has, but at least it tells you clearly that all bets are off regarding this >> archetype because it is under development and anything goes, including >> changes to its archetype id, if required. >> >> V0 is also consistent with SemVer (although you could do it differently >> as well, e.g. 1.0.0-alpha). >> >> After publication to v1, the governance is more formal and follows >> semantic versioning of patch, minor and major versions. >> >> >> >> It may not always be nice, but unless someone can provide a >> comprehensive, clean and perfect set of archetypes, that’s what life will >> be for a while. CKM aims to support the processes around the development, >> review and publication of the archetypes etc. as much as possible. >> >> In CKM, the revision history of an archetype links back to any previous >> (or next) major version of the archetype. See e.g. the Blood pressure v2 >> archetype. You can get any (trunk) revision of the archetype that was ever >> uploaded to CKM from there and compare any two revisions. Archetypes that >> were updated in the last couple of years will have the SemVer version in it >> as well, and there is always the canonical hash (the one used in the >> template) you can use to determine the right version of the archetype if >> required. >> >> >> >> I hope this answer your questions below and provides a bit of context in >> between. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Sebastian >> >> >> >> *From:* openEHR-clinical <openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org> *On >> Behalf Of *Pablo Pazos >> *Sent:* Montag, 27. Mai 2019 20:37 >> *To:* For openEHR clinical discussions < >> openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org> >> *Subject:* Re: Downloading previous versions of archetypes from CKM >> >> >> >> You might also have problems with some archetypes that went from .v1 to >> .v0 >> >> >> >> In the archetype history you can see the previous versions, but some will >> have a broken history, for instance some archetypes changed name and >> archetype id but serve the same purpose as the old archetypes, which broke >> any implementation of the previous archetype. Also there is no clear >> history of archetypes changing ID or merging archetypes. >> >> >> >> Because of those issues is difficult to trust what is on the CKM in the >> long term. I decided to work with older archetypes to keep my baseline >> clean and stable, do modifications on those if required, and create our own >> archetypes when required. >> >> >> >> I'm not sure if this is because how the CKM manages archetypes, or >> because the modeling process have flaws in the version management. >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 5:01 AM Dileep V S <dil...@healthelife.in> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I had used some archetypes from CKM in my templates some time back. Now >> when I am revising & reviewing them I notice that some of the archetypes >> have newer versions an so my templates give error as they are unable to >> locate the older versions that they use. So I have a few questions on the >> best practices for using CMK resources >> >> 1. Can I access older versions of archetypes from CKM? and how? >> 2. Should I maintain a copy of the archetype versions that are used >> in my templates separately? >> 3. Are archetype versions incremental improvements? If yes should the >> AQL not support multiple versions to maintain backward compatibility as >> the >> templates evolve? >> >> regards >> >> Dileep V S >> >> *Founder* >> >> *HealtheLife Ventures LLP* >> >> m: >> >> +91 9632888113 >> >> a: >> >> 106, Innovation Centre, IIIT, Electronics City, Bangalore 560100 >> >> w: >> >> ehr.network, <http://ehr.network>ayushehr.com e: dil...@healthelife.in >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-clinical mailing list >> openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org >> >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez* >> pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com >> +598 99 043 145 >> skype: cabolabs >> Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj> >> >> <https://cabolabs.com/> >> http://www.cabolabs.com >> https://cloudehrserver.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-clinical mailing list >> openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org >> >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org >> > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org > > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > -- *Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez* pablo.pa...@cabolabs.com +598 99 043 145 skype: cabolabs Subscribe to our newsletter <http://eepurl.com/b_w_tj> <https://cabolabs.com/> http://www.cabolabs.com https://cloudehrserver.com
_______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
