On 5/27/07, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.biz> wrote: > We have just moved to multi-activity instructions in the archetype editor - > examples that led to this (but are not on the web yet)
Would it be possible to get hold of those examples in a message to this list, or in a private mail or by publication on the web or in SVN? (If possible preferably before Wednesday morning European time...) In the openEHR "EHR Information Model" specification there is a nice chapter with Instance structures that really help when explaining the model. Would it be possible to add some examples for "Action" there too? (Does anybody here on the list have instance examples of Action structures available in any readable form?) > are consent as part > of a procedure instruction, and medication review as part of the medication > instruction (it was formerly just a careflow step in the medication action > itself but needs quite different data). Thanks! Nice examples. I was actually trying to figure out where to put consent in a process modeling situation. > The state in the action does apply to an activity (mandatory) - as in fact > only the activities have states Do you mean _implicitly_ apply to an activity (since there are no state-related fields in the class named ACTIVITY except a pattern pointing out allowed action archetypes)? Maybe I am misunderstanding something here. > Remember, many actions will be entered without an instruction - so no > activity id is required Since the allowed states are archetyped in the ISM_TRANSITION of an ACTION archetype where there are no mandatory references to ACTIVITY instances or archetypes I wonder how the statement "state in the action does apply to an activity (mandatory)" fits in. If an ACTION is recorded ad hoc without an associated INSTRUCTION+ACTIVITY-structure, then what is the state applying to? Is there some implicit ACTIVITY? How is that then determined? If several related actions (for the same implicit process) are recorded, can they be connected somehow? Is it the "workflow_id" attribute of ENTRY that connects them? Something else? A related question: Why can an ENTRY only be associated with one [0..1] workflow_id? Is it not possible that an ENTRY can be part of several workflows defined in some external workflow engine(s)? (By the way, wise choice not to commit to or include a specific workflow engine in the openEHR spec. E Brownes thesis http://www.openehr.org/publications/workflow/t_browne_thesis_abstract.htm referenced in the spec is very enlightning on the current state of affairs...) > (the instruction can have multiple states > based on the sum of the states for all activities). Completing the > instruction will mean placing all activities in a terminal state. Thanks for the clarification there too. > I hope this helps. > Cheers, Sam It sure did. Sorry if I am a bit dense not understanding everything and for pestering you and the list with even more questions... Best regards, Erik Sundvall http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/
