The examples we have evolved the last years to reflect DCM 13972 changes over time.
I think that Heather should ask if it needs to be clear if an archetype / DCM / hl7 template / Ceml and such are published, hence ready for use, or drafts and not safe to use.
If all in CKM is safe to use, that would be one method to comply to DCM statement on publication status. If a colour scheme in CKM differentiates the ripe from the green that is confirming to the DCM statement on publication status.
The DCM standard specifies that any creator of models Shall state if they are ready to go. It would be better for OpenEHR to work on compliance to these obvious common sense instead of obstructing a standard we all would benefit from.
Dear William, how do DCM's solve the problem of name-giving.
Are they identified by semantic meaningful (thus obvious) identifiers?
Can you be sure that there can be some kind of a guarantee that two DCM's with the same name have the same contents?
Or are the ID's only valid inside the ecosystem in which the DCM's are created?
I am sure there is a little tension on what you are proposing and what is actually going on. I think we in the openEHR community do have considerable experience in how to do this, what can go wrong and why. We all have a lot to learn yet.
It is typical of the current health standards process that one or two people, who have time on their hands, write something and everyone else argues. Ney sayers are seen as defending their position, but they may be coming from a sensible position. All I can say is that Heather Leslie probably has the most experience of anyone on the planet in this area, so it might be worth trying to get beneath the surface of her concerns. The alternative may be an irrelevant ISO standard (to join the others!).