hi Tom We are speaking about data integrity issues at different levels. Of course the reference model assures data integrity at that level; I was speaking of data integrity at the of data aquisition - calibration, methodology, attribution, these kind of things.
Grahame Thomas Beale wrote: > Grahame Grieve wrote: >>> At the moment we have not seen any need for multiple inheritance in >>> archetypes. >>> >> I see this as very similar to multiple inheritance in objects. >> There is no *need*, but there is useful things that can be done. >> The question is whether the price is justified. >> >> The use case is relatively simple in concept - allowing multiple >> inheritance would allow me to "cross-cut" concerns. I could write >> an archetype that only dealt a narrow aspect of an information >> structure, such as data integrity issues, and then use it across >> multiple archetypes, letting them focus on the big picture, not >> the minutiae of data integrity, which is mostly overlooked but >> ubiquitiously present. >> > Hi Grahame, > in openEHR at least, data integrity is not defined or solved by > archetypes - it is in the reference model. > > - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > -- Grahame Grieve CTO, Jiva Medical Software Integration Tools CTO, Kestral Computing Healthcare Applications
