I also think the version number should not be changed if the review and approval process introduse no changes in the structure or semantic of the archetype.
Incrementing the version when no changes are introduced just makes things confusing and increase complexity. Sendt fra min Samsung-enhet -------- Opprinnelig melding -------- Fra: "Bakke, Silje Ljosland" <silje.ljosland.ba...@nasjonalikt.no> Dato: 28.08.2015 15.05 (GMT+01:00) Til: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org Emne: Archetype versioning: Skipping v1 and going straight to v2? Hi everyone, We've bumped into an issue related to versioning of archetypes and implementing non-published versions: Several implementation projects are using archetypes from the http://arketyper.no CKM, many of which are still drafts or under review since the CKM switch to v0 for unpublished archetypes was done only recently, and the publicly available tools all use v1 by default, lots of functionality has already been made using unpublished v1 versions of archetypes, and will be deployed this autumn. Of course, when reviewed, these archetypes may go through drastic changes, and this will be a problem once other projects at a later time try to use archetypes which by then may have been published as v1. One of our proposed solutions is to skip v1 for these archetypes and go straight to v2 when publishing them. Is this practically possible, and will it have any adverse consequences? Kind regards, Silje Ljosland Bakke Information Architect, RN Coordinator, National Editorial Board for Archetypes National ICT Norway Tel. +47 40203298 Web: http://arketyper.no<http://arketyper.no/> / Twitter: @arketyper_no<https://twitter.com/arketyper_no>
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
