Erik Sundvall wrote: > Hi! > > I also think that shorter more readable paths are preferable for query > strings, but maybe software should be required to accept both. The > semantics for default path resolution algorithm might be good to put > in the specs however we do to reduce the risk of misinterpretation. > > A possibly stupid question regarding some of the points below: Aren't > there cases when software using different human language translations > of archetyped EHR content becomes easier to write if the at-codes are > stored in the all LOCATABLE nodes of EHR data. (That way a simple > at-lookup to the "ontology"-part will give you a label in the > preferred language.) > *Hi Erik,
Currently they are stored in all EHR nodes; the only question is whether we make it optional for those nodes that don't need it; i.e. sole children of single-valued attributes. Or - we can always put at codes in the data, but allow the shortened paths. For the at-codes on nodes like HISTORY etc, the text & description in the ontology is not useful - it just says 'history' - so it is a distraction. - thomas *
