60 min | ADL2 | Bostjan Lah | Status update Pieter Bos ADL Next generation Thomas Beale ADL2 Evolution https://discourse.openehr.org/t/adl3-straw-man-specification/4752 | review last proposal from Thomas (see discourse); provisional reactions Bostjan Lah so far it seems a bit of better proposal because address ADL2 changes and does not breaks the data, btu we need to do further evaluation on the proposal; Bostjan Lah also i am not sure why we need to remove the 000 digits (zero-padding) from the at-codes; it would be nice if we don’t have to do this Sebastian Garde I would like to know and see how can we easily convert ADL2 archetypes to ADL1.4, because we will be needed for a while Mattijs Kuhlmann we don’t have zero-padded at-codes (ADL2) Seref Arikan did we had evaluation on what will be the impact on converting all archetypes?
further discussions going on - it looks like there is not sufficient incentive for the SEC switch over to this new proposal, it is still preferred to stick to original decision made at Arnhem. Bostjan Lah, Ian McNicoll we should then analyse if we can use IdSys and AtSys numbering as profiles added to ADL specs, where community is most likely goings to use AtSys Bostjan Lah see Arnhem meeting for notes about semantic keys and aliases Members present at the SEC meeting prefer moving to an ADL with at-codes to reduce effect on users of CDRs. To allow keeping common ADL we propose the suggestion to introduce ADL+sys specification where code-system is separate from the ADL “language”. We would like to keep primary codes as at-codes in ADL2x but add optional secondary codes (so at-sys would have primary codes as at-codes, but also add id-codes for potential future use). This change also does not require additional fields in the RM.
|