An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110428/6287abf1/attachment.html>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110428/0bd7a478/attachment.html>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110428/143ac7ac/attachment.html>
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-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110428/0a22173d/attachment.html>
should archetypes be referenced from data?
* what system of hashing and signing should be used?
- thomas*
*
------ next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110428/6eacdbf4/attachment.html>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110428/cfbff873/attachment.html>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110428/1e0e6edd/attachment.html>
(Espa?a)
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110428/9cdfe73f/attachment.html>
I know that a draft is supposed to change, even big breaking changes.
what I don't like is the idea of not being able to describe what I am
using in my system or even describe it and everyone thinking is
another completely different thing
I think the main problem here is that we are using a single
Isn't it better that everybody who chooses to use v.0 drafts creates their own
internal version numbering so they can keep track of it.
As far as i understand there can be more than 1 v.0 of an AT (at least there
where for the demographich AT's and some of them might not be present in
openE
2011/4/28 Thomas Beale :
> 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 proble
11 matches
Mail list logo