Dear all, As an other layman my two cents to the discussion.
Specialisation Since archetypes express what can be maximally documented about a topic, and because in the Template the archetype can be constrained maximally to fit the local context at that point in time, I think there is almost no need for specialization. In the example given below. It is clear that both BW and BWB example at the same time Body weight and Body weight at the time of birth can be generically handled and do not need specialization. Body weight change is always relative to an other measurement. I see no reason why these aspects of what can be documented around the topic Body weight can not be in the same archetype. At Template design time the appropriate attributes will be selected or deselected. A possible example There is the generic Weight archetype as an Observation. Expressing all that can be documented about any weight observation. And then we define a specific specialized one for Body weight or Organ weight or thumb weight or compound weight, etc, etc, etc I do not think this is the way to go. The world is large and to many specialization's will be produced. I think it is wrong to have an archetype called Body weight. We only need ONE about all aspects of WEIGHT of anything. My line of thinking is: When all that can be documented about a concept is defined in an Archetype and the concept is weight than the topic is about weight measurement of anything. Within the archetype there must be an attribute what the focus of the concept is. So we must be able to indicate in an archetype attribute whether this a person or a thing. It must be possible to indicate what is observed. At the Template level I see specialized Sections be constructed containing generic archetypes. Archetypes that define precisely in the context of measurements in newborns and grownups what will be documented about weights. I'm curious to learn what are the real use cases for Archetype specialization. I see the need for specialization in the Template phase under control of the knowledge domain. In the meantime the tools must be able to support specialization. Gerard -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, MD Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252544896 M: +31 620347088 E: gfrer at luna.nl Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 On Dec 14, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Daniel Karlsson wrote: > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20071214/93e9cf9a/attachment.html>
