Hi Bert, I had fun reviewing the 2012 conversation. My take on it is is that there was complete agreement from all contributors that many different flavours of archetype will with us for a long time, and as such the current archetypeId mechanism is inadequate. The only disagreement/debate was about how best to rectify that problem. The preferred solution was namespacing use reverse-urls but you and others argued for more definitive unique identification via OID/UIDs.
For now we have decided to go with the reverse-url namespace as the primary approach but allowing other identifiers such as UID/OIDs to co-exist if that is preferred by specific regions or developers. We have started work on adding namespacing (and actually more critically full version/revision numbers) to CKM and the other openEHR tools, so we can start to get some real experience with this before too long. Ian On 19 February 2014 07:54, Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl> wrote: > Thanks, Peter, > > I must have missed the discussion before, and I checked a bit the discussion > of December 2012. It was not like I had it in my mind, it was more about the > way to avoid archetypeId-clashes then about the archetypeId-clashes itself, > as I yesterday suggested. > > However, in the wiki you link to is first time a ID-system described after > the discussion in 2012, but the messages from 2011 and 2009 indicate that > the problem was identified before the discussion in 2012, and I was wrong in > thinking that I brought the problem under attention. > > I just brought a possible solution under attention. > > Thanks for clarifying this. > > Bert > > > > > On 02/19/2014 06:00 AM, Peter Gummer wrote: >> >> Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl> wrote: >> >>> Maybe this discussion has been on this list before December 2012, I must >>> have missed it. >> >> >> Hi Bert, >> >> There was a long discussion 18 months earlier than that one: >> >> >> http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/2011-April/005941.html >> >> But a proposed fix for the problem was already being discussed five years >> ago: >> >> >> http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/2009-June/004600.html >> >> And note that the wiki page was created at the same time: >> >> >> http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/Development+and+Governance+of+Knowledge+Artefacts >> >> Peter >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org >> >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org -- Dr Ian McNicoll office / fax +44(0)141 560 4657 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com ian at mcmi.co.uk Clinical Analyst Ocean Informatics Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, University College London openEHR Archetype Editorial Group Member BCS Primary Health Care SG Group www.phcsg.org / BCS Health Scotland
