Expanded Version lifecycle - implementers need to consider impact

SPECRM-107 is the one @joostholslag got us started on, which was to add some kind of obsolete or archived state to the Version state machine. The main scenario was something like a Care Plan or other episodic Composition that has become no longer pertinent to care. We eventually settled on the new state name inactive.

Further analysis by the smart people at Nedap exposed the fact that just one extra state won’t do what is needed, because you need a kind of ‘inactive’ for incompletestate Compositions.

The solution has been to add a further new state abandoned. See here in the revised Common IM for what the additions look like.

This change might well have more impact that implementers initially expected, so I’d like all vendors / implementers to have a good look at this CR and the changes it entails.

Pinging the following just as a start: @Seref , @kjejor , @matijap , @birger.haarbrandt , @pablo , @sebastian.iancu , @Sidharth_Ramesh , @pieterbos , @rong.chen


From our (Code24) point of view these changes are welcome, and the impact is reasonable / manageable.