Vincent McCauley wrote: >Hi Thomas, > >1. I think node_id rather than "meaning" for the name of this data would be >clearer. > > I suspect we will make this change - most people prefer it
>2. A compromise suggestion to address Dipak's issue (which I think is >important) as well as reduce XML bloat: >Change the datatype to just a string but introduce a new section at the >start of the XML "package" which has a list of name/value pairs of form: ><archetype references> > <archetypeID> "atnnnn" <\archetypeID> > <archetypeName> "An archetype formal name" <\archetypeName> ></archetype references> > >one pair for each archetype referenced in the following XML "package". > >This would also be helpful for software to pre-locate all required >archetypes (e.g. when XML is initially received) >prior to further processing the XML. > > this is a good idea - we have previously had notions similar to this. What you are suggesting is effectively including a slice of the archetype's ontology section either at the top of each Composition and/or at the top of each generated Extract, derived from the total ontology as follows: - only use the language of the locale (translations can be gotten from the archetype) - only include those codes/meanings of nodes actually used in the data (remember that at runtime, a user might choose to ditch optional nodes, e.g. BP protocol etc. does this correctly express your suggestion Vince? - thomas - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
