Issues
- change_control.ORIGINAL_VERSION_CLASS attributes have same name as inherited class functionsSPECPR-455
- Add 'Role/ note' and 'other_details' to PARTY_IDENTIFIEDSPECPR-440
- Availability of external terms for LINK classSPECPR-433Ian McNicoll
- LINK class description points to the outdated ENV13606 part 2SPECPR-394
- LINK class is not Locatable, which prevents defining alternatives and annotationsSPECPR-393
- common IM spec refers to RELATED_PARTY class instead of PARTY_RELATEDSPECPR-385Resolved issue: SPECPR-385Thomas Beale
- Add ‘inactive’ status to lifecycle_state optionsSPECPR-383Resolved issue: SPECPR-383Thomas Beale
- Prevent VERSION<EHR_STATUS>.lifecycle_state = incompleteSPECPR-368Thomas Beale
- ATTESTATION.items can only refer to EHR contentSPECPR-357
- Disjoint merging advice in COMMON problematic for persistent compositionsSPECPR-355Resolved issue: SPECPR-355Thomas Beale
- System_id in the versions of same contribution should all be the sameSPECPR-339Thomas Beale
- Document the composition uid valueSPECPR-322Resolved issue: SPECPR-322Thomas Beale
- preceding_version_id should be preceding_version_uidSPECPR-311Resolved issue: SPECPR-311Thomas Beale
- LOCATABLE.links.target is too restrictive, allowing only EHR_URI formatSPECPR-281Thomas Beale
- Extend FEEDER_AUDIT_DETAILS class with "other_details" (ITEM_STRUCTURE)SPECPR-271Resolved issue: SPECPR-271Thomas Beale
- Support for TAGs/LABELs/ANNOTATIONsSPECPR-265Resolved issue: SPECPR-265Sebastian Iancu
- Typo DV_LINKs should be LINK on common specSPECPR-230Resolved issue: SPECPR-230Thomas Beale
- Common IM specification references obsolete openPGP specSPECPR-216Resolved issue: SPECPR-216Thomas Beale
- Type error in RM-spec: RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION_ITEMSPECPR-139Resolved issue: SPECPR-139Thomas Beale
- Reword description of the process of document signingSPECPR-131Resolved issue: SPECPR-131Thomas Beale
- Support for 'final' in VERSION.lifecycle_stateSPECPR-125Resolved issue: SPECPR-125Thomas Beale
- Change VERSION.data from Any to LOCATABLESPECPR-123Rong Chen
- AUDIT_DETAILS.change_type needs to be empty in CONTRIBUTION.auditSPECPR-111Resolved issue: SPECPR-111Thomas Beale
- VERSION commit in XMLSPECPR-105Thomas Beale
- Add instance level annotations capability to RMSPECPR-103Resolved issue: SPECPR-103Thomas Beale
- AUDIT_DETAILS.system_id semantics not well definedSPECPR-99Resolved issue: SPECPR-99Rong Chen
- Add an attribute to store the archetype_id in Locatable like described for archetype_node_id page 21 common.pdfSPECPR-92Resolved issue: SPECPR-92Thomas Beale
- Add a unique node id to LOCATABLE so that child objects can be uniquely identified without the name fieldSPECPR-91Thomas Beale
- Confusing naming in VERSION.uid definition in common_im specsSPECPR-90Resolved issue: SPECPR-90Rong Chen
- Make VERSION signature support more flexibleSPECPR-80Heath Frankel
- Reference to 'latest version' not properly specifiedSPECPR-79Resolved issue: SPECPR-79Heath Frankel
- Mandatory mode in participationSPECPR-23Resolved issue: SPECPR-23Rong Chen
- PARTICIPATION is not LOCATABLE, so has no archetype_node_id, but occurs in archetyped structuresSPECPR-10Rong Chen
- The type of VERSIONED_OBJECT.uid doesn't match the type of VERSION.uid.object_idSPECPR-1Resolved issue: SPECPR-1Rong Chen
Description
Details
Details
Activity
Mohammad ZawahraJanuary 26, 2025 at 6:27 PMEdited
Ian McNicollJanuary 26, 2025 at 5:00 PM
Hi @Mohammad Zawahra @Pablo Pazos Mohhamed is a real person all right!! Sorry @Mohammad Zawahra - we recently had an experience on openEHR Discourse where there was an attack by quite a clever but disruptive bot, so we are all a bit twitchy. You are doing nothing wrong but as was discussed in the other post, these are specifications not implementation documents. Also, for good or bad, this is a mature spec that has been implemented by a large number of organisations/ tools etc, As such, you might not find much enthusiasm or response to your suggestions found that there is not too much interest in tidying up some of the specs, even where there would be agreement, as this would cause a lot of disruption to existing systems.
You r comments are appreciated and if/when we get around to building a v2 of the RM, some of these ideas will be useful.
Can I suggest that you also engage on openEHR Discourse discourse.openehr.org , particularly on your ideas re a TypeScipt library ? - that would be of interest much more widely.
Mohammad ZawahraJanuary 25, 2025 at 11:13 PM
@Pablo Pazos I am a real person. Why? Am I doing something wrong?
I am a programmer and an MD doctor, I am currently implementing parts of openEHR in TypeScript. I am not in the data science field, so I apologize for any inconvenience.
Pablo PazosJanuary 24, 2025 at 1:32 AM
@Mohammad Zawahra is a real person or an AI bot?
@Ian McNicoll Thank you sir, I am sorry I didn’t know that, I really appreciate your efforts in openEHR and focusing on stability, regarding the typescript library it is still in development and might take time and be released as open-source to be used in frontend and backend web application.
thank you for your suggestions.