I absolutely support this change now. In relative terms, there is very little software 'out there'. The level of improved clarity of this change for those developers being introduced to openEHR in the coming years would far outweigh the inconvenience to the bleeding edge adopters. IMHO of course. <g>
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 18:00 +0100, Thomas Beale wrote: > In the current openEHR reference model, there are 3 top-level packages, > known as: > - rm: the information model > - am: the archeype model > - sm: the service model > > The first of these really should be "im", not "rm", and is only "rm" for > historical reasons. As we convert from BitKeeper to Subversion, and also > as we are approaching release 1.0, it occurs to me that it would be nice > to make the change of "rm" to "im", which would make documentation > clearer, and reduce the confusion around the phrase "reference model". > > However, there is already a fair bit of software, schemas and so on > around the place. It might be too late to make such a change. Note that > it need not be done for software still to be correct, since we are only > talking about a package name - it does not change any class names, nor > any tag names in XML data that I can think of. > > Can I have reactions on how this change would be received. It were ever > to be made, now would obviously be the time. > > - thomas beale > -- Tim Cook, Consultant CHASE Health Informatics, Inc. GPG Key is on key servers everywhere. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20050712/cbc2809d/attachment.asc>
