Thomas Beale schreef: > Bert Verhees wrote: > >>> *We thought about this a number of times over the last few years. The >>> problem is that many archetypes are completely compatible with multiple >>> versions of the reference model, because changes occur in other parts of >>> the reference model. So marking an archetype with "RM version 1.0" >>> doesn't tell you the most likely question you will ask, which is "is >>> this archetype compatible with R 1.0.2, that I am using in my system?" >>> The answer might be no or yes - it depends on the archetype, and what >>> things it references in the RM. The only solution I can see is to put >>> such compatibility information in the CKM and other similar tools, and >>> make the compatibility list available from service interfaces that >>> provide access to archetypes. The same goes for shared templates. >>> >>> So I think that a RM version number indicator on an archetype is in >>> general not useful, and may even be misleading. >>> >>> >> I agree, but on the other hand, an archetype is modelled according to >> a specific RM-version. >> > > actually, I would only agree at the level of major version - there are > archetypes around that started life when Release 1.0.1 was the latest, > and may not be finished until Release 1.0.2 is already issued. It most > likely makes no difference to the authors. > Exactly what I mean, we must agree, which part of the version-number indicates a possible incompatibility concernig archetypes/RM-version. Bert > - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > >
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20090203/74184a0a/attachment.html>
