Dear Graham, Thank you for your frank answers.
It is clear. CEN and HL7 are on diverging paths with respect to Templates and Archetypes. 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 Oct 17, 2007, at 1:27 AM, Grahame Grieve wrote: >> Is multiple inheritance in the use case you presented, the only >> solution? >> I expect it is not. >> So why use it. >> When 'data integrity' is a recurring issue in several archetypes, >> re-use >> by inclusion of a 'data integrity' archetype in an other >> archetypes is >> a better other solution. > > It would be better if you didn't have to do that - didn't have to > consider > *everything* in each design. But on balance, I believe that multiple > inheritance raises more problems that it solves. > >> I'm not closely following HL7 Templates. >> Are the HL7 Templates a separate and diverging piece of work when >> compared to EN13606-2 or harmonising? > > There is no simple answer to that. Really, it's the wrong question. > It's like asking whether the icing on the cake is helping make > two totally different cakes the same or not. > >> Do both the HL7 Templates and CEN Archetypes share identical >> requiremenets? > > again, this is hard to answer. Archetypes and Static models share very > similar requirements - they are both constraint and ontology binding > models. Templates is a way of re-using the constraint models in a form > that the openEHR/13606 community have not tried to investigate; the > design intends to meet those requirements differently. Only time will > tell which is the right approach. > > Grahame -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20071017/8f1723e6/attachment.html>
