Thomas Beale wrote: >> ... They used to be accepted. (An example would be "blood_type-o".) ... > > ... I would suggest that > "blood_type-o" could not be a sensible archetype name from a clinical > point of view, because 'o' is not a specialisation of the blood type > reporting concept ... > > I think we would need at least one realistic example of where a name > needs to be only one character long before we allowed it.
Sure. I wasn't really trying to present "blood_type-o" as a realistic clinical example, and I agree it isn't. It was intended as a technical example; "xx-x" is another example. When trying to come up with a realistic example, however, I think we should consider more than just openEHR domain concepts. Archetypes are potentially applicable to any domain, not just to clinical concepts. It strikes me that, whereas it would never be realistic to have a single-character concept name (or at least not in English, although I wonder whether even this assumption holds in, say, Chinese or Japanese), the idea of a single character concept specialisation is quite plausible. No realistic example has popped into my head, however, while writing this reply. - Peter
