Hi All, The past 3 or 4 subjects on this list takes me back to conversations that we had before (maybe several years ago?) when we were discussing slots and links. Maybe they were here maybe they were on the ARB list. I do not recall now.
But my feeling in both of these areas are that there is a tendency for archetype developers to create archetypes that are more than one clinical concept. IIRC, that is about the time that templates were being thought of/designed to alleviate the pressure on archetypes to serve everyone, everywhere. As Heath has just mentioned, templates are the better place for this type of grouping. They tend to provide that ability to be more localized. Remember that when you are creating or reusing archetypes that they should be universally reusable. If they are not, then they do not meet the basic requirement of being a single clinical concept. This is fundamental to openEHR being future proof. The misuse of slots and probably any use of links in a particular archetype; IMHO is a very bad thing and will lead us down the road that we see with data model centric systems as opposed to our information model. While I am not a clinician nor a lab tech I do ask those of you creating archetypes to review the fundamental principles of archetypes and templates. Then think twice before publishing an artifact.
