I think that we only need to record the RM version that was used to create/save the Archetype. This is really just for information purposes regarding the tool used to develop the archetype and not really used for determining at runtime if this archetype is compatible with my system. Take the Ocean Archetype Editor, currently it targets a r1.0.1 RM but will soon targeting r1.0.2 (using ADL 1.4.1). There is minimal differences but useful to know.
A full list of compatible RM versions can be maintained separately in CKM as Thomas suggests. The question is, do we need a dedicated field in ADL to do this if it for information purposes only, why not use the description.other_details. In addition I think we need a name and version of the tool used to generate the archetype. Again the Ocean AE produces different output depending on the Version of the tool, an old Archetype can be read by a new version of the tool but the reverse is not always true. Regards Heath > -----Original Message----- > From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical- > bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Roger Erens > Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 4:44 AM > To: For openEHR technical discussions > Subject: Re: RM Versions > > on 3-2-2009 17:53 Thomas Beale wrote: > > Ian McNicoll wrote: > >> Hi Thomas, I was suggesting the RM version be recorded when the > >> archetype is officially published or revisioned and re-published. This > >> is the only time when an archetype author can be expected to take some > >> account of the underlying RM when designing or revising the model. It > >> is not a perfect solution but it gives some estimation of the RM > >> version that the author was working against when designing the > >> archetype. The archetype tools could automatically record the RM > >> version whenever an archetype lifecyle transitions to published or has > >> its version/revision updated. > > * > > but then the previous releases that the archetype may or may not work > > with are lost, if it is being update to indicate the latest one it works > > with. And an archetype might not be touched for a long time (due to > > being perfect ;-) and so would never have this information updated. So I > > can't see how it is in any way trustworthy when written in the archetype. > > > > - thomas > > So you probably want two properties recorded? > > One being > 'was-created/revised-against-RM-version' with a single value > > and the other being > 'works-with-or-validated-against-RM-versions' of the list type > > And recording these properties within the archetype seems to save time > in looking up this info; looking it up via the CKM will take much more time. > > Roger > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
