On 16/08/2010 10:26, Ian McNicoll wrote: > > > I have been having an email conversation with Sebastian Iancu of > Code24 about some issues concerning the design of the Demographics > PARTY_IDENTITY.person_name.v1 > > http://www.openehr.org/knowledge/OKM.html#showArchetype_1013.1.477 > > There were 2 key areas discussed: > > 1. In 'Person identifier' the concept name of the archetype has a > 'run-time constraint' allowing the archetype concept to be re-defined > at Template/tun-time. e.g the original name of the archetype is > 'person identifier' which may be re-defined i.e.
Hi Ian, I could not see the following in the archetype mentioned above. > > *Concept name* > > Person name > Runtime name constraint: > /Choice of:/ > > * Coded Text > o Reporting name [The subject?s name as it is to be used for > reporting, when used with a specific identifier.] > o Newborn name [A type reserved for the identification of > unnamed newborn babies.] > o Professional or business name [The name used by the > subject for business or professional purposes.] > o Maiden name [The name used by the subject of care prior to > marriage.] > o Legal name [Registered name (Legal name).] > o Other name [Any other name by which the subject is known, > or has been known by in the past.] > * Free or coded text > > The constraint is deliberately left open (via the 'Free or coded text' > choice) as we felt that we could not be certain that the Code Text > options (derived from ISO) were universally applicable and that other > national name categories are likely to be required in the forseeable > future. > > The concept name constraint approach for compatibility with the > purpose() function in the RM class: > > purpose() : DV_TEXT > <http://_9_0_76d0249_1109068213265_877931_4246report.html/> Purpose > of identity, e.g. ?legal?, ?stagename?, ?nickname?, ?tribal name?, > ?trading name?. Taken from value of inherited name attribute. > > > 2. A related but broader issue is how/where we should define the terms > for such a constraint - in the openEHR terminology, in the archetype > as local atcodes, or in an external terminology such as Snomed. > presumably in the same place as where we define things like 'family relationship'. Currently this is done in openEHR, because of the lack of a reliable alternative, but we should take this up at IHTSDO to see if these kind of vocabularies cannot all be done in Snomed. - thomas beale -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100820/0da7a201/attachment.html>
