Bert, Archetype paths are unique. Data paths are not necessarily unique with archetype_node_id alone, this is why you need to add a name/value to the node predicate. Section 11.2.4 is referring to data paths.
In the case of archetype internal ref, you use archetype paths, which are unique. Heath > -----Original Message----- > From: Bert Verhees [mailto:bert.verhees at rosa.nl] > Sent: Wednesday, 12 December 2007 6:44 PM > To: heath.frankel at oceaninformatics.com; For openEHR technical discussions > Subject: Re: path of ArchetypeInternalRef > > Heath Frankel schreef: > > Bert, > > Paths are unique, they must be. > > > I thought so too, that is why it seemed more logical to me to store the > path, instead of the archetype_node_id in the locatable/pathable > But I read in the Architecture Overview section 11.2.4 that even paths > are not guaranteed uniquely, for that purpose, the name-attribute of a > node can be used. > > I have never seen an archetype which uses the name-attribute of a node. > The ADL-example in the document is not very clear. > > When I look in the ADL-specs, part 5.3.6, it states more or less in > contradiction to the above mentioned document, a path must be > unambiguous, and that this is achieved by different archetype_node_id's > > So not the archetype_node_id's have to be unique, but the path must be. > So we come to another function of the archetype_node_id > > The archetype node ID provides you a link to the ontology to give you the > > semantics, this is fundamental to Archetypes. > > > That is true, I thought of that, but that is no reason to store them in > the Locatable/pathable-object. They can not identify the location in an > archetype of a data-object. > The only reason for existence I can think of and you mention, is in the > archetype itself. > > This all does not seem logically to me, I can live with that, but it > wonders me, I can misunderstand: What are the design thoughts behind? > > Thanks > Bert
