On 02/12/2010 01:33, Tim Cook wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 00:50 +0000, Thomas Beale wrote: > > >> This is one of the most common uses of templates we are finding. > So somehow knowing the possible choices somehow affects the actual code > in the field you are querying?
in theory no, but it could affect what you consider to be correct. If you knew there were only 3 possible codes due to a template that had been used, then you might query directly using those codes, rather than the 20,000 allowed by the archetype. >> I can imagine other thing, e.g. coding of fields that were just >> DV_TEXT in the archetype. > While I still think that this is a bad idea anyway. After all; it is > either free text or coded text. Pick one. I still don't understand how > knowing what set was available is meaningful to the code chosen. well the user often picks whether to code or not; a quite common visual control is one that allows either to be entered. So the template might define a preferred value set of codes, while still allowing for plain text. The archetype probably only had the plain text constraint. If you have the template at hand, you could do some querying based on the knowledge of the code subset used by the template. >> In ADL 1.5-land, a template is just another layer of archetyping, with >> some extra features. > I still fail to see the need. It seems to me to be a useless layer of > complexity. But, I am still interested in a use case where templates > are 'needed' to 'fully interpret' the data. you mean the need of having the template to interpret the data? You can undoubtedly do it without the template. But since a lot of coding is defined locally, I think it is going to turn out to be useful. >> This is distinct from any 'visual template' stuff, which I agree >> should be a distinct artefact and probably formalism. > And this level is dependent on implementation choices. Only > applications built using the same framework can share these templates. > If an entity is going to dictate presentation options and layout then > they are likely (IMO) going to do so in the context of the same > framework. * * sure. This would imply yet another technology-independent formalism, if gui directive templates are also going to be portable. - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101202/675fc250/attachment.html>
