> The AOM is at fault in this instance - the AOM has a field > defined in C_ATTRIBUTE called 'children', and then proceeds > to rename this field to 'attributes' and 'members' in the two > subclasses C_SINGLE_ATTRIBUTE and C_MULTIPLE_ATTRIBUTE. This > of course is not really implementable in any OO style > language or XML.. the XML schema does the correct thing and > just defines 'children' in the base C_ATTRIBUTE class. > > I have followed the XSD exactly in my serialization.. I > believe the intention is that the archetype XSD reflects the > AOM model 1:1 (as much as possible). I see the archetype XSD > as a formal definition of the cotnent of the AOM document. > Oh, so that's why I got confused why members was implemented as a method rather than an attribute, I didn't make the correlation between members and children (perhaps I should have read the words rather than just the picture :>).
In that case, the XML schema does not require a change request for this issue. I would still like to explore the use of an existence element rather than minOccurs and maxOccurs attributes. I don't see why existence and occurrences in C_OBJECT are treated differently. And then I think the interval_of_integer type should use elements lower and upper as per the Interval assumed type specified in the openEHR Support package. Heath _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
