All right , I get the idea with includes/excludes, but if I were to to use invariants (which means creating an assertion) then the "sex" or "gender" information should be available "inside" the archetype.
While this is possible, there seems to be no need to include this information in the archetype since it is obtainable from the demographic information of the patient. So alternatives would be, include this redundant piece of information (sex) or have access from the assertion to data "outside" this archetype? The second one is not possible I understand. am I correct? Thomas Beale wrote: >Rodrigo Filgueira wrote: > > >>Specs and documentation state that assertions should be used in >>reference to information *inside *the archetype they are defined in. >>does this mean I cannot create an assertion in composition to validate >>some relation between two observations which are part-of the composition? >> >>This situation came up while I was thinking on how to model the >>following, "perinatology reports should not be recorded for male >>patients". >>How would you represent this restriction with RM and archetypes? >> >> >this would be either in the include / exclude archetype slot list in a >Composition or Section archetype, or else in invariants in such an >archetype. > >- thomas beale > > >_______________________________________________ >openEHR-technical mailing list >openEHR-technical at openehr.org >http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060826/3b0ad9e3/attachment.html>
