Re: poor version management in archetype editor

[Heather Leslie <heather.leslie@oceaninformatics.com>]

Governance of archetypes and templates is very topical in a number of 
circles at present;-)  And so it should be.

The 3 main things that I learned in the NHS work that I participated in 
last year were governance, governance and governance, and what I saw 
then was pretty simple compared to where the pools of archetypes and 
templates have evolved to now.

Your comments and questions are actually well timed as this is all under 
significant scrutiny and investigations and discussions are being led by 
Thomas Beale.  I'm sure they will be posted and shared for community 
comment as soon as they are in a cohesive state.

And the need and priority for this is increased with every archetype 
produced and every template using the archetype.  It is definitely not a 
trivial task to maintain any number of either artefacts but it is also 
incorrect to say that this is not being addressed.

There are a combination of mechanisms required - those at the 
international repository level, and filtering down to national programs, 
local projects or individual author pc level.  There is no 'one solution 
fits all', and the final solution is not complete but there is 
significant work being done to solve the issue, and this involves a 
combination of people-dependant processes and technical solutions. 

And of course it is not as simple as managing archetypes, but also 
templates, and terminology subsets; perhaps release sets of archetypes 
as well. We need to be sure that the archetype that the modeller 
intended is the one that is used in a template, and that the content 
that gets implemented in an application is therefore as intended at 
design time.
*
This is not a problem that is unique to openEHR.*  All artefacts need 
governance so that at implementation the combination of all artefacts 
stays true to their original design intent.

In the Clinical Knowledge Manager - the openEHR archetype repository 
(which is still in beta testing) at www.openehr.org/knowledge - there is 
absolute version control.  Each new archetype uploaded, branch created, 
check-outs, modifications and check-ins, branch committals back to trunk 
etc - all are tracked.  All have a unique id and they can be compared 
against one another.  This is part of the current review process, and 
the technical 'magic' happens behind the scenes but is transparent to 
all who want to take a look via the 'Revision History' feature within 
the current CKM.  Diffs indicate whether changes only require a revision 
or a new version etc etc.

Likewise at the next levels, subversion is being used within the NHS and 
within vendor development situations.  With correct protocols for naming 
and versioning in place this can still be very powerful, including the 
ability to roll back to previous versions.  This solution is still a mix 
of people, processes and technology.

And yes, the name of the archetype eg OBSERVATION.blood_pressure.v1.adl 
is currently under author's control - there is nothing automated to 
change the name in the tooling.  There are a multitude of opinions about 
how to name the archetype and the overt expression of versions and 
revisions, and this is currently under very active discussion.  Yet at 
the same time, the artefact in the repository has very strict version 
control.  And after all, our reality is that there is nothing to stop 60 
different authors creating an archetype called 
OBSERVATION.blood_pressure.v1.adl - seems a perfectly reasonable name 
for an archetype about blood pressure to most people.  So the question 
really becomes how to differentiate and know which one we are using in 
our models - one way is naming protocols for modellers to be able to 
best utilise, and then there are technical solutions such as MD5 Hash 
and others to ensure tooling can provide the right archetype to the 
right slot in the right template. 

As we get more experience with implementation, we have more 
understanding of the issue.  In retrospect, at the end of the first 
tranche of NHS work I didn't realise that all I was seeing was the 'tip 
of the iceberg'.  Now, more of the iceberg is being exposed - er, is 
that global warming? (or perhaps it has run aground) - hmm - a very bad 
metaphor, but all the same I am heartened by the current discussions and 
collective work to solve this .  This is not an issue that is 
insurmountable but it is complex, and rightly requires appropriate 
rigour applied to reach a sound solution.

I repeat that this is not a unique openEHR problem, and despite my 
obvious bias, I am convinced that the Clinical Knowledge Manager is a 
very positive development, in a domain where similar tools are 
conspicuously absent. Please take a look for yourself.

Regards

Heather

Williamtfgoossen@cs.com wrote:
> In a message dated 28-11-2008 10:23:59 W. Europe Standard Time, 
> richard.kavanagh@nhs.net writes:
> > A combination of a good version management tool and an internal 
> > configuration management policy works well for us, I would be happy 
> > to discuss this with others.
> >  
> > We use subversion as our version management tool and find it 
> > indispensible for us.. I would be interested to hear what other 
> > archetype/template authors use for their configuration management.
> >  
> > regards
> > Richard Kavanagh
> > Head of Interoperability Specifications
> > Data Standards and Products
> > NHS Connecting for Health
> > Tel : +44 (0)113 397 4398
> > Mob : +44 (0)7770 644449
> > Richard.Kavanagh@nhs.net
> > www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk
> >
> > NHS Connecting for Health supports the NHS in providing better, safer 
> > care by delivering computer systems and services which improve the 
> > way patient information is stored and accessed.
>
>
> I understand that subversion is used as more or less external software 
> from the archetype editor tool.
>
> That is fine, but still leaves the need to be able to save an 
> archetype as: 
>
> body temperature draft v01.adl
>
> and after making changes and update and redistribution,
>
> body temperature draft v02.adl
>
> and when all parties agree it is finished
>
> body temperature draft v1.adl
>
> However, as I understand, such a simple version policy is not possible 
> with the archetype editor, because it makes from scratch on only v1 of 
> all variants.
> I agree with mr Hilbert that this is a feature of a simple program, 
> e.g. notepad does it already.
>
> If this is what mr. Kavanagh calls configuration management, that is 
> fine with me, as long as the archetype editor allows us to do this.
>
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> dr. William TF Goossen
> director
> Results 4 Care b.v.
> De Stinse 15
> 3823 VM Amersfoort
> the Netherlands
> email: Results4Care@cs.com
> phone + 31654614458
> fax +3133 2570169
> www.results4care.nl
> Dutch Chamber of Commerce number: 32133713
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical@openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical

--

*Dr Heather Leslie*
MBBS FRACGP FACHI
Director of Clinical Modelling
*Ocean Informatics <http://www.oceaninformatics.com/>*
Phone (Aust) +61 (0)418 966 670
Phone (UK)   +44 (0)77 2206 4546
Skype - heatherleslie