If you sent the sql data definition language along with the data, and that ddl expressed constraints as
triggers , rules and data type constraints, how different would that be sending an ADL file along with
some archetype instance data ? Or does the extra little structure provided by ehr container classes and ehr
base classes really that useful , and are they guaranteed to be perfect enough to always be backwardly compatible ?
On Tue Jan 3 10:59 , Tim Churches sent:
Richard Hosking wrote:
> I still struggle with this stuff - isnt an archetype describing
> constraints on the data- ie type, bounds etc? Shouldnt this be coded
> into the DB? If not where?
No, all those constraints are enforced by the openEHR kernel/engine (you
know, the bits that aren't available yet) informed by archetypes
expressed as ADL (archetype definition language) files.
Ultimately, teh openEHr kernel should be built right intot he underlying
database engine - and that is quite possible with extensible database
servers such as PostgreSQL - given the right expertise and a bit of
funding. In the meantime, it can be implemented as a layer on top of a
database engine eg in C#, Java or Python.
Tim C
> Hugh Leslie wrote:
>
>>
>> An openEHR database schema doesn't contain ANY archetypes - The data
>> reflects the openEHR reference model, not the archetype model. If you
>> have
>> to hard code archetypes in a schema then you have not gained anything at
>> all. The archetypes just describe what the data means.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Gpcg_talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
>
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
