Dear Everyone, actually I was going to re-state the questions to the technical list, but will cross post it to the clincial (will I be banned???).
For the clinical list read the original message below: For the technical list, I would still like to have the details of specialisation laid out. Are constraints inherited and thus implicit in the specialised archetypes' definitions? Then, in the BW/BWB example, are also the weight gain/loss inherited (which according to my layman understanding is not very sensible for birth weight). Clear semantics of specialisation would be necessary to bring further any discussion on support from tools in this area. /Daniel Daniel Karlsson, PhD Department of Biomedical Engineering/Medical Informatics Link?pings universitet SE-58185 Link?ping Sweden On Sun, 2007-12-09 at 19:06 +0100, Tim Cook wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I would suggest that you re-post this on the clinical mailing list. > > Cheers, > Tim > > > > On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 12:55 +0100, Daniel Karlsson wrote: > > Dear Everyone, > > > > Background: > > We are in Sweden starting a number of clinical archetype-construction > > projects and we are hoping to re-use as much as possible from the > > openEHR repository by specialisation. > > > > So to my problem: > > Looking at the openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.body_weight.v1 archetype > > (hereafter named BW) and the > > openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.body_weight-birth.v1 archetype (BWB), BWB does > > not seem to be a specialisation of BW. BWB specifies the event to be > > birth and clothing state to be naked, but relaxes the unit restriction > > to allow grams (with "g" as the abbreviated from, not "gm", see ISO > > Guide 31, item 3.1-a). > > > > Then to my specific questions: > > 1. Are the BW and BWB wrong and should be corrected? > > 2. Can BWB be understood without BW or must each restriction be stated > > explicitly? E.g., does BWB inherit the protocol restriction from BW? > > 3. What about weight gain and weight loss in BW? > > > > Best Regards, > > Daniel
