> I think that the right place to say "for this usage of this archetype I want
> to explicitly exclude something" is in the template. The archetype should
> be a representation of a concept that can be used for all conceivable
> requirements of that concept and then constrained in the template.
I haven't seen any template specification, hence I tend to think
of things in terms of how I would do them in an archetype.
Personally, I think there will be cases where the very existence
of an attribute makes no sense in any conceivable requirement
of that concept - or needs to be explicitly denied to prevent misuse
of the archetype.. just looking briefly at the OBSERVATION
RM, it has comments saying that 'state' data should be
stored either per event, or per observation - but not both. Surely
the choice of which strategy is being used would be made by
constraining out the existence of the 'other' state attribute?
If zero existence constraints are not to be used in archetypes then
the section dealing with them in ADL should be updated.
In particular, page 48
"Existence is shown using the same constraint language as the rest of
the archetype definition. Existence constraints can take the values
{0}, {0..0}, {0..1}, {1}, or {1..1}. The first two of these constraints
may not seem initially obvious, but may be reasonable in
some cases: they say that an attribute must not be present
in the particular situation modelled by the archetype. The default existence
constraint, if none is shown, is {1..1}."
On a related note, whilst I understand the general concept of
a template in openehr I am yet to see any spec of what
they look like.. are there any specs out there?
Andrew
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
openEHR-technical at openehr.org
http://www.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
