Oxford Partnership wrote: > 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. as Erik says, if the archetype says nothing, then whatever the RM model (i.e. the particular classes in question) says goes. > - The fact that the current tools do not expose or use these > attributes, is a design decision made by the people writing the tools. well, in hindsight, it was a bad idea - just that the initial builders knew the models very well but underestimated the importance of making the RM visible in these tools. Now we know better, but effort is needed to add this facility to the tools. There is a tool made by the group at Valencia Polytech in Spain that does this aspect quite well actually, but doesn't do many of teh editing tasks yet. So - no tool available today does all that is needed.
- thomas
