thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com
Fri Mar 20 08:11:46 EDT 2015
On 20/03/2015 11:53, Marcus Baw wrote:
> How will you represent attribution for retranslations/updates over the
> course of time?
> over the lifetime of an archetype you could end up with quite a long
> list of translators, some of whom would have done the original full
> translation, and others may only have done a small update or changed a
> single word. I agree that some form of external registry might solve
> this more elegantly than encapsulating it inside the archetype, but in
> that case why put any of it inside the archetype - you could instead
> include URLs to appropriate part of the translator registry.
> On 20 March 2015 at 11:25, Thomas Beale
> <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com
> <mailto:thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>> wrote:
> Anyone have further thoughts on this - if changes are to go into
> ADL2 for this, we need them sooner rather than later.
> - thomas
For everything to do with history of authorship and translation -
probably that is the ultimate future. And we do have full version
control auditing in CKMs of course, and to date, all CKMs that I know of
are publicly open.
However, we are so far away from reliable standards for that kind of
thing, and more importantly for standardised registry implementations
(i.e. with something like reliable, publish REST URI structures for
accessing this kind of info) that we just have to 'do our best' for now.
Usually the ISO 11179 brigade wants to own all this, but we never see
any concrete progress that I'm aware of.....
So all the author/contributors/translator meta-data in the archetype is
an attempt to provide the highest value information in the smallest
space, without relying on a registry / CKM-like tool. For example,
knowing the current primary translator for e.g. the BP measurement
archetype for language X is probably useful, also knowing what the last
version of the original EN-language archetype was the language X
translation based on...
I think for now we just have to try to strike a reasonable balance
between practical needs (who to contact) and attribution requirements.
It might be worth exploring putting in a 'full version history' URI into
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the openEHR-clinical