Ed Dodds wrote: >Sorry for not knowing better but I'll ask anyway; why >not something like: > ><name xsi:type="DV_CODED_TEXT"> > <value>clinical finding</value> > <defining_code> > <code_string >terminology_id="SNOMED-CT">404684003</code_string> > </defining_code> ></name> > > Hi Ed,
this works in XML-schema only, but not in any other formalism. We also don't make any special use of XML attributes, since it does not map to object models - the only exception we make with this is the use of archetype_node_id in all data nodes, which is implemented as an XML-attribute in the XML-schema. But otherwise we use a systematic mapping of all object-oriented properties to XML elements. Doing otherwise causes a lot of problems - there ends up being an arbitrarily chosen mapping of object attributes to XML attributes or elements - often for completely irrelevant aesthetic reasons. What we are suggesting is that if the syntax form "SNOMED-CT::404684003" were used as the persistent form of the object, then it would work in any formalism, including XML, where it would as shown in my original post (second example). - thomas beale
