> This is not sensible to have in an archetype - otherwise it would not be
> there! It is a requirement for templates in use.
I don't understand why it is not sensible to have in an archetype?
Couldn't it be useful to say that for this particular observation
we want to explicitly disallow the recording in of state information?
OBSERVATION matches {
state existence matches {0} matches {*}
}
Would be an observation that has 'data' but is not
allowed to contain 'state' information.
what about a DV_MULTIMEDIA value where a thumbnail
makes no sense so we want to explicitly stop people
from storing data there
DV_MULTIMEDIA matches {
media_type matches { "audio/wav" }
thumbnail existence matches {0} matches {*}
}
I can accept that there may not be any clinical situations where
this has been encountered and therefore there are no obvious
use cases for it - but I don't see why its not sensible
to be able to state an attribute is not merely optional, but in
this archetype is disallowed.
If it is indeed not sensible, then the existence grammar in
ADL can be simplified - currently 0 is allowed - it really should
just be 0..1 (default) or 1 as the allowable existence ranges.
(which could all be simplified to a simple 'mandatory' keyword
and the whole existence bit could be removed!).
OBSERVATION matches {
data matches { ... }
state mandatory matches { ... }
}
Andrew
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
