In my imagination it works in a similar way to the named or cloned events in the TD. At least I hope that it could be that simple.
Maybe I’m dreamin’? Cheers Heather From: openEHR-clinical <openehr-clinical-boun...@lists.openehr.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2018 6:12 AM To: openehr-clinical@lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: How to define transitions in the ISM On 01/07/2018 08:21, Heather Leslie wrote: Hi Pablo, Every archetype ideally needs to be designed for the maximal dataset and universal use case. The ACTION archetypes are no different. But you have picked up on a major gap in our tooling at present – the modellers need the ability to be able to constrain the ACTION archetypes in templates for each use case: * to show what data points are relevant for each pathway step, and * which steps are relevant to our use case. this is indeed a limitation, more or less the 'last' semantic limitation that I know of in the archetype formalism. It requires an addition to ADL2/AOM2, that I have partially worked out (it is technically related to tuples), but I don't think it is going to work in ADL 1.4. It will be another reason to move to ADL2/AOM2... - thomas
_______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list openEHR-clinical@lists.openehr.org http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
