> Christian, you may have misunderstood - the 'meaning' fields in an > archetype are the node-level ids - which also double as codes, whose > meaning is given in the lower part of the archetype. See for example > http://www.openehr.org/repositories/archetype/latest/adl/archetypes/openehr >/ehr/entry/observation/openehr-ehr-observation.apgar_result.draft.adl.html - > those codes in magenta in the main part of the archetype are 'meaning' > values; the name of this field is what we are proposing to rename
You mean for example "at0000" at "OBSERVATION" is a meaning/id? O.k. In this case it seems you follow a different design than I thought. Are "OBSERVATION", "HISTORY" and smaller nodes archetypes for you? In my understanding of a world made of hierarchical models they would be. If they are knowledge models (archetypes) themselves, I would put each of them into their own file. Instead of using local ids, one could then reference archetypes over their file name. While the template models (archetypes) should exist in separate files from which a running system can get instantiated, there is also a need for a serialized form of knowledge, like the observation example you have given, or for storing a complete EHR. In this case the file names would be lost; one model would contain complete part models, not only the reference to them. > 'node_id'. It appears on every archetype node, not just the root. Note > that these ids are local to the archetype - to reference them from the > outside, you need to include the id of the archetype itself, e.g. > 'openehr-ehr-OBSERVATION.apgar_result.v1::[at0004]". Christian - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
