Andrew, I thought that the archetype approach was certainly extension. In fact there examples of such. Refer to Adverse-Reaction and Adverse-Reaction-Medication. I am also sure it supports restriction, the same example also supports this. Unlike some people, I believe that restriction is a valid form of specialisation as far as UML is concerned. Certainly in OOP, I often have an abstract property that has its value set (sometimes in hardcode) in the concrete class.
Heath > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org > [mailto:owner-openehr-technical at openehr.org]On Behalf Of Andrew > Goodchild > Sent: Thursday, 26 May 2005 13:36 > To: openehr-technical at openehr.org > Subject: RE: The semantics of archetype Specialization > > > > I would only hope that that is what is intended. However, the > semantics at > the moment that appears to be supported by the editor implies > that archetype > specialization is nothing more that "cut and paste" style > semantics. We will > have to wait for the answer from Tom and Sam. > > Also, I am wondering if archetype specialization only > supports restriction > or extension or both? > > -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 12:08 PM > To: openehr-technical at openehr.org > Subject: Re: The semantics of archetype Specialization > > 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 > > > > - > If you have any questions about using this list, > please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
