Update on meta-data for openEHR and 13606

Diego Boscá yampeku at gmail.com
Mon Jan 27 08:37:38 EST 2014


Just a couple of comments:

Do really is_template & is_overlay need to be mandatory? I would say that
they can be optional if you are dealing with archetypes (assuming that all
archetypes are just archetypes by default).
What does exactly 'is_overlay' refers to?

Also, I think that you could argue that version_status is more suitable to
be placed into the resource_description instead of where it is now.


2014-01-27 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>

>
> Following conversations with Ian McNicoll and others working on the
> archetype meta-data question, I have posted a possible revised model<http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/spec/Knowledge+Artefact+Meta-data>containing the following changes to the current one:
>
>    - copyright has been moved to the non-translated top-level description
>    - license has been added to the description
>    - custodian_namespace has been added to the description
>    - custodian_organisation has been added to the description
>
>
> We will need to decide on the 'revision/validation date' concept and add
> that in.
>
> If you just want the UML diagram, here it is<http://www.openehr.org/wiki/download/attachments/45645905/archetype_meta_data_UML.png?version=1&modificationDate=1390827799466&api=v2>
> .
>
> I am not personally working on these properties, but I would think we are
> not far away from a model that will work seamlessly for openEHR and 13606.
>
> - thomas
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20140127/c195e41a/attachment.html>


More information about the openEHR-technical mailing list