Bert Verhees 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
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 yo
an.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
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 abou
On 02/19/2014 10:34 AM, Ian McNicoll wrote:
> The
> preferred solution was namespacing use reverse-urls but you and others
> argued for more definitive unique identification via OID/UIDs.
I agree
Bert
On 02/19/2014 10:34 AM, Ian McNicoll wrote:
> The
> preferred solution was namespacing use reverse-urls but you and others
> argued for more definitive unique identification via OID/UIDs.
Ooops, send to quickly
I am not anymore so sure if it need to be UIDs. I think now, one year
later, that orga
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140219/3af45050/attachment.html>
7 matches
Mail list logo
