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. > Only just saw this. This is correct, and an implementation of specialisation is underway in the Archetype Workbench, which will result in specialised archetypes being represented in a differential form rather than the present 'flat' form, where inherited constraints are copied in. The existing document on semantics will be updated to reflect details not already published. However, the basic approach is similar to object-oriented programming languages:
- constraints are inherited, and can be overridden - overrides are 'covariant' i.e. the constraints are narrower than the parent, also can be thought of as 'subsumed' - new constraints can be added where allowed by the parent archetype and reference model There are of course a number of fine details that need to be documented. In the new version of the workbench tool, the entire archeytpe repository will be compiled like a system of object classes, with proper validation of specialisation relationships. hope this helps. - thomas beale
