In a message dated 13-6-2008 19:10:07 W. Europe Daylight Time, sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com writes:
We are getting into dangerous options here: include all and exclude all in a time series where 'all' definitely changes both with respect to revisions of the existing ones, deletions and new to be added might lead to inconsistent calls to archetypes over time. I believe such constraining should not take place on the archetype over archetype level, but at the (OpenEHR) template level. In here you can be explicit in what is to be included or excluded. > > Hi Adam > > This is another example of the approach to be as specific as possible. The > exclude statement can be used to exclude specific archetypes and the Include > ALL in this case means that all others are allowed. If the Exclude ALL > statement is added to an archetype, it means ONLY those specifically stated > can be > added. > > The issue here is backward compatibility and new archetypes. The include > will generally be seen as the appropriate list but others could be added if > they > arise and are required (the list is not closed). Tony Shannon has argued > (along with me) that this should be the default (ie we do not usually know > that > it would never be appropriate to add another archetype here. > > Is that helpful? Do you think this is useful? It does mean there is no need > to reversion archetypes if new ones might fit in a cluster (which is also > useful). > > Cheers, Sam Sincerely yours, dr. William TF Goossen director Results 4 Care b.v. De Stinse 15 3823 VM Amersfoort email: Results4Care at cs.com phone + 31654614458 fax +3133 2570169 www.results4care.nl Dutch Chamber of Commerce number: 32133713 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20080614/96d6e87a/attachment.html>
