Hi Erik, Yes, clusters used in the way you describe can be queried upon just like any other class of archetype. It is one way to handle these issues, but still the 'purer' methodology for a Pap smear report, in this case, would be to aim for a maximal Pap report archetype and use the template to constrain it for specific purpose.
Clusters are in use all through the NHS archetypes/templates. I have found them especially useful in examination-related archetypes for very simple and universal concepts eg dimension, inspection, etc. These clusters will pop up amongst a large range of archetypes. So you will be able to query for a width or length in whatever part of the EHR a dimension cluster is used. I guess that it could follow that it is possible to consider using the cluster as the common 'child' archetype within 2 distinct 'parent' entry archetypes to mimic multiple inheritance. But it is not recommended. The cluster class has limited functionality compared to entry classes - eg it is limited without event model etc - a cluster has just data and no state, events, protocol associated with it. These data elements would be necessary in a Pap report - I don't think you could get away with these being in each parent. After all you are already losing some of the commonality - the very thing that you are trying to use the cluster for - if you have to put the same event or state data back up into each 'parent' entry archetype. Hope this helps clarify rather than confuse. Heather >-----Original Message----- >From: openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org [mailto:openehr-technical- >bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Erik Sundvall >Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2007 1:00 PM >To: For openEHR technical discussions >Subject: Re: Multiple parents and max number of nested specialized archetypes? > >Hi! > >I know that it is technically possible. ;-) I was trying to ask if it >was clinically possible to identify clusters etc in this specific >case. Sorry for not being specific enough in the question. > >After I asked some good suggestions regarding template use have been >posted as a good reminder that there is usually more than one >solution. Thanks! > >// Erik > >> Erik Sundvall wrote: >> > 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. > >On 10/18/07, Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: >> this is why we have Cluster & Structure archetypes that are routinely >> shared via slots in various other archetypes - it provides a high degree >> of re-use, just as for classes referencing other classes (assocation, >> aggregation) in the object paradigm . >_______________________________________________ >openEHR-technical mailing list >openEHR-technical at openehr.org >http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > >__________ NOD32 2600 (20071018) Information __________ > >This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. >http://www.eset.com
