Erik Many thanks for the quick reply.
I have no issues with the two level models used in OpenEHR, it makes perfect sense to me to have an underlying RM for all archetypes to be based on. If I am understand you correctly, then : - No attributes within an OpenEHR class can be assumed to be mandatory within the XML representations, as in all cases the RM can be defaulted to. - The fact that the current tools do not expose or use these attributes, is a design decision made by the people writing the tools. thank you On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Erik Sundvall <erisu at imt.liu.se> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Oxford Partnership > <oxfordpartnership at googlemail.com> wrote: > > I have been looking at the OpenEHR Information Model ( ehr_im.pdf ) to > get > > a better understanding of the underlying classes used within the > OpenEHR. > > Whilst I am beginning to understand the main classes used within the > > archetypes, I am still confused as how they make it to the XML version > of > > the archetypes. > > > > For example if you consider the "Composition" class, it has a number of > > attributes 'language', 'territory' and 'category' all of which are > looking > > to be mandatory. > > > > Now if I look at one composition archetype , ie. > > openEHR-EHR-COMPOSITION.prescription.v1.xml > > > > These attributes are not all present in the XML, why is this?. How can I > > know what will be present in the XML form of the archetype? > > It's good that you are studying the EHR IM, many common confusions can > arise from starting with the AM or an archetype editor only. > > Your current problem might be caused by one of the most common > counfusions regarding openEHR that we meet when introducing students > and others to the two level model of openEHR, tell me if this helps: > > When an archetype is "silent" about something (e.g. an attribute) then > the RM (e.g. the attributes of the Composition class) are > unrestricted/untouched by the archetype and can be populated by > anything that the RM itself allows (in this case e.g. any language or > territory). > > The fact that the archetype tools of today don't show what is > unrestricted/untouched in the RM probably make things more confusing > than neccesary, most tool developers are aware of this so changes > might come about sooner or later. > > Another soundbite: An archetype not based on a reference model is > impossible (or at least pointless). > > Best regards, > Erik Sundvall > erisu at imt.liu.se > http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/<http://www.imt.liu.se/%7Eerisu/>Tel: > +46-13-227579 > _______________________________________________ > 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/20080221/1efb28fc/attachment.html>
