2011/4/28 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>: > On 27/04/2011 10:44, Diego Bosc? wrote: > > I still don't see the problem > > If we wait until an archetype is published to care about versions then > you will have v2 or v3 archetypes as much, which in my opinion breaks > completely versioning purpose. What is the problem with having a v27 > archetype? Is it less pretty? > > it should make no difference, although since the major version number in > openEHR is reserved for breaking changes, one would hope that v27 archetypes > would never occur. However, v2.0.154 or v3.18.26 could be realistic.
We should have no problem with v0.1 or v0.2.1 then... If we have two different systems that communicate and they are referring to different archetypes with the same name then we are throwing away all the supposed semantic interoperability (Not much better than using HL7 v2 messages that use different Z segments). If we want to openEHR to get broader use we can't just tell the people that have been already using archetypes that the archetypes on their projects were "not intended to be used" or "you used them at your own risk". If we want to go that way then we should put at least a warning on the download page of those archetypes. > > - t > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > openEHR-clinical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical >
