On 28/04/2011 13:15, Heather Leslie wrote: >> >> * do we go with starting at v0 or v1 (I still like v0 because it >> implies 'you will most likely get burnt by using this archetype >> in a real system, but have fun and tell us your experience')? >> > Some current plans for CKM include recognising the need for "alpha" > archetypes. However the feeling is that these could and should be > managed in a connected but separate proposed archetype 'sandpit' - > something planned for CKM as a space where we can start archetype > collaboration from a very raw concept stage and evolve it in a > (potentially) open way. This will enable the current CKM to continue > to be the place for 'serious' archetype candidates, open collaboration > and appropriate governance (at a level that is deemed appropriate for > the status of the archetype - looser for drafts, extremely tight for > published). > *If* and when the "alpha" archetypes are mature enough to be > reasonable candidates for collaborative review then they can be > promoted to the CKM as we know it now - effectively the current CKM > drafts. > We don't need to do this in the current CKM process > * > *
the separate sandpit seems like a reasonable idea, but archetypes there will still need to be identified, and there will always be someone who will use them - at least in purely research systems - so I think the need for 'v0' doesn't go away... - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110428/0a22173d/attachment.html>
