# Where should the copyright go

**Category:** [Implementation](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/implem/39)
**Created:** 2023-05-16 21:40 UTC
**Views:** 357
**Replies:** 5
**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/where-should-the-copyright-go/4009

---

## Post #1 by @richard.kavanagh

I think there may be an issue as to where the copyright details go in implementations of ADL2/AOM2.

Looking at AOM2 the RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION_ITEM class is as follows:
![image|685x500](upload://rWiTTqesmYscL1EdJP0Y5E2bIrE.png)

The ADL2 spec correlates to this with 

![image|690x330](upload://2Hwar0N56ufgNP8pX6Kwhyt4S6h.png)

Yet in both the Archie plugin and the CKM ADL2 implementation, the following appears

**
![image|690x125](upload://vMbrGmnu6831gsVGNvdZdsvVn0G.png)
**

It seems to be that the presence of 'copyright' here is incorrect, it should be an entry in the 'other_details' dictionary.

The fact that both CKM and archie have implemented it the same way is causing me to question my understanding of the specifications - where should the 'copyright' data go?

---

## Post #2 by @sebastian.garde

Hi Richard,

CKM uses Archie for conversion to ADL2 here, so the congruency doesn't mean much.

It seems that the Base [adl2] component's RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION has the copyright element, whereas in the Common IM it is part of the RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION_ITEM (i.e. for each language in adl 1.4).

Cp:
https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/BASE/latest/resource.html#_resource_description_item_class
https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/common.html#_resource_description_item_class  

From memory, this was an intentional change.

---

## Post #3 by @richard.kavanagh

[quote="sebastian.garde, post:2, topic:4009"]
CKM uses Archie for conversion to ADL2 here, so the congruency doesn’t mean much.
[/quote]

Well that explains why they are so closely in step with each other :slight_smile:

---

## Post #4 by @richard.kavanagh

[quote="sebastian.garde, post:2, topic:4009"]
From memory, this was an intentional change.
[/quote]

It's not my intention to challenge the decision, just the consequences of it.
In ADL1.4/AOM1.4 there can be multiple 'copyright' values, one per language (1 per **RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION_ITEM**)
In ADL2/AOM2 there is a single 'copyright' in **RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION**

As a consequence, converting between AOM1.4 and AOM2, I am assuming the following:

- The 'copyright' in **RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION** is unpopulated (unless **other_details** in the same class had a value keyed appropriately)
- Each of the 'copyright' values in **RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION_ITEM** moves to  **other_details** in the same class with 'copyright' as the key.

The ADL2 output from Archie has a defect as there is no **copyright** in **RESOURCE_DESCRIPTION_ITEM** 

Furthermore, the reference model at  https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/RM/latest/common.html#_resource_description_item_class does not seem to be in alignment with AOM2 and possibly needs to be updated.

---

## Post #5 by @thomas.beale

ADL2 uses the BASE component [Resource model](https://specifications.openehr.org/releases/BASE/latest/resource.html). ADL1.4 is stuck with the older one unfortunately.

---

## Post #6 by @richard.kavanagh

Thanks @thomas.beale the point I was attempting to make is that the ADL2 representation from Archie does not follow the ADL2 specification. 

As a general point, the relationship between the specifications with respect to those applicable to ADL1.4 vs ADL2 and AOM1.4 vs AOM2 is possibly not as clear as it could be. I suspect those that have seen the evolution to ADL2 have a good grasp on it, but for those picking it up in its current state, it is very easy to get lost.

---


**Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/where-should-the-copyright-go/4009
**Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/where-should-the-copyright-go/4009