Hi Thomas / Bert, I think you will find a significant pain point in the modelling community. Agree that for now 1.4 .opt is going to be best for implementers but as I understand things a 2.0 .opt and related RM changes would not be radically different, in any case.
The big difference, and gain (once we get over the line) is much easier handling of design-time artefacts, and potential extensibility. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: i...@freshehr.com twitter: @ianmcnicoll Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation ian.mcnic...@openehr.org Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On 1 March 2017 at 12:26, Thomas Beale <thomas.be...@openehr.org> wrote: > > > On 01/03/2017 10:00, Bert Verhees wrote: > > Op 1-3-2017 om 10:44 schreef Thomas Beale: > > Good news Thomas, but don't bring it with disdain. > > > I don't know what the words means ;) > > > I got it from google translate, in French it is dedain. > > > c'était une blague... > > > that appears to be a PR about GDL? > > > I meant a current list of Open Issues, I don't know why the 168 is on top, > it seems to have the highest priority, I don't understand why. > That is not my discussion point. > > > ah - probably you wanted to show these issues > <https://openehr.atlassian.net/issues/?filter=-4&jql=status%20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Analysis%2C%20%22In%20Review%22%29%20AND%20component%20in%20%28ADL2%2C%20AOM2%29%20order%20by%20created%20DESC>. > There are issues (always), but not with the specialisation representation. > > > So it's not perfect, but it's far from non-existent. I'd say your best bet > is to use the new version of ADL-designer. > > As said, institutions will want a stable release. I will never advise an > organization to move to ADL2 as long as it is not stable. > > > well, it has a stable release here > <http://www.openehr.org/releases/AM/Release-2.0.6/docs/index>. As noted > above, there are issues, but there are issues outstanding on everything - > they get worked on and the results get added to later releases. I'm not > sure of what the alternative to that is. > > Also one of the selling points of OpenEHR is CKM, it is fully ADL 1.4. > There must be many archetype, and many data-storages based on ADL 1.4 > > > well CKM is a problem in one sense, but people could work with ADL2 tools > and save the results as ADL 1.4, which you can do in the ADL-designer, for > upload to CKM. That's not ideal, I agree - it would be better if CKM > upgraded to ADL2. > > Data storage is generally based on OPT 1.4, and I think that is also a > save format of the ADL-designer. > > > And there is another point, companies don't tend to change when they do > not feel the pain. > I had my first IP6 course in 1998, I worked for DEC (Digital) at that > time, and still the computer I work on is configured using IP4, so is my > Internet-router. > > > well you are pointing out some pain, and I am pointing out the solution. > If you are not in enough pain, you may not want the solution ;) > > - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr- > technical_lists.openehr.org >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
