Hi Andrew Well, I'll defer to Tom or Sam. But from a computational perspective, what else could make sense?
Grahame Andrew Goodchild wrote: > Thanks Grahame, > > The UML specs definition of specialization matches what I thought it had > meant. > > I guess what I would like to understand is whether such a definition is true > or not for archetypes? > > Is specialization in archetypes meant to support the definition you provided > and the archetype editor is missing some functionality to ensure that only > correctly specialized archetypes can be built? > > - or - > > Is it that archetypes and the editor supports some new semantics around > specialization that I don't quite understand yet? > > I am sure Sam or Tom could shed some light on this ... > > Cheers, Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org > [mailto:owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Grahame Grieve > Sent: Thursday, 26 May 2005 10:57 AM > To: openehr-technical at openehr.org > Subject: Re: The semantics of archetype Specialization > > Hi Andrew > > >>Does anyone know what it actually means to specialize an archetype? And > > what > >>the rules are? > > > The UML specification offers this definition for generalization: > > A taxonomic relationship between a more general element and a > more specific element. The more specific element is fully consistent > with the more general element and contains additional information. An > instance of the more specific element may be used where the more > general element is allowed > > I think that this is a fairly watertight definition and quite relevent > to your question. > > >>I looked at the archetype editor and created a specialized archetype of >>another. The editor seemed to just copy the parent archetype and then >>allowed the user to change anything about the archetype. >> >>For example, I can now make a mandatory field optional, or I can extend a >>parent archetype with new mandatory fields that don't exist as optional >>fields in the parent archetype > > > By the UML definitions, these become "ill-formed" model. > > Of course, it's one thing to to state the definition, quite another to > know how to compute whether a model is ill-formed. > > Grahame > > > > - > If you have any questions about using this list, > please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
