On Oct 18, 2007, at 5:51 PM, Heather Leslie wrote:
> 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.
I agree.
>
> 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.
>
In other words there are 'atomic archetypes'.
These 'atomic archetype's re-appear in normal archetypes to be
finally constrained in Templates.
The Template is the profiling tool to make things explicit in a
defined healthcare context.
> 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.
>
Here I need some explanatory elaborations to make things very explicit.
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-technical mailing list
> openEHR-technical at openehr.org
> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20071018/528f1fc7/attachment.html>
