Hi, I also think we should avoid multiple inheritance - it is complex enough the way it is - from a tooling as well as from an archetype design point of view. We don't need to make it complicated in addition to complex.
Like Erik, I don't know the details of these two archetypes, but I think a better design than using multiple inheritance would be to - use a common base archetype for both. Here everything that the two archetypes have in common (even if it is a little bit more generic than it would be when only considering one of them) can be located. And also everything that doesn't largely overlap can be located as optional items - even if it doesn't have any relevance to the NHS and or Bethesda. - If really necessary specialise this base archetype for the environment, but preferably use templates to achieve this (strip out unnecessary items in your environment, further constrain the archetype etc.) Cheers Sebastian > -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Sundvall [mailto:erisu at imt.liu.se] > Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2007 5:04 PM > To: For openEHR technical discussions > Subject: Re: Multiple parents and max number of nested specialized > archetypes? > > Hi! > > Interesting discussion. I'm hope we can avoid multiple inheritance in > archetype specialisation. It will be interesting to see how far one > can get just using single inheritance and inclusion (clusters etc). > > On 10/17/07, Koray Atalag <atalagk at yahoo.com> wrote: > >There are now two alternative archetypes, one designed for NHS by Ocean > which > > is already a specialization of general histology archetype and the other > archetype > > I am currently modeling, Bethesda System 2001. I have not experimented > yet if > > my archetype can be redesigned as a specialization of NHS archetype > (PAP) > > or be a an alternative archetype for the same purpose possibly for use > at a different > > setting. In the case of having two separate alternative archetypes, I > thought of > > having a further specialized archetype which conforms to both parents. I > think > > this is possible and useful. > > What is different and what is in common in the two 'smear' archetype > approaches (Bethesda v.s. NHS)? Sorry if this is a stupid question > coming from a non-clinician. > > Does the reasoning in the paper... > http://www.openehr.org/publications/archetypes/templates_and_archetypes_ he > ard_et_al.pdf > ...regarding organisational vs ontological models apply to this or are > the differences of another nature? > > Can one share important sub-parts without sharing view on process and > structure. If so, will the information entered using the two different > archetypes be computable in a similar way for e.g. decision support > systems. > > Perhaps the best will be to agree on one archetype in this case if > possible, but I assume similar cases will surface again. From a > technical perspective it is interesting to discuss how far one can get > in reaching clinical consensus in 'ontological' sub parts. Splitting > things up in too many small 'consensus pieces' without sharing > encompassing structure is also likely to have negative impact on > semantic interoperability. > > Best regards, > Erik Sundvall > erisu at imt.liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-227579 > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
