Hi Thomas, I was thinking about your example with blood presure:/data/events[at0006]/data/items[at0004] - human readable form: /data/events[any event]/data/items[Systolic]/data/events[at0031]/data/items[at0004] - human readable form: /data/events[Postural change]/data/items[Systolic] You say that the meaning of each node is given by the path, because it determines the context of each node.But if you have diferent meanings, I think that different ontology terms are needed for each node, but the ontology terms are indexed by the nodeID, instead of the node path. I've an Instruction archetype with a constraint of DvText in the archetype, this example is like the one mentioned by Rong, this node has no nodeID, its path is /narrative, so I can't find a term in the ontology to show the label for this field on the GUI, because I need the nodeID. May be the ontology mapping must be something like ont[lang][pathToAOMNode] instead of ont[lang][AOMnodeID], What do you think? Best regards,Pablo Pazos Gutierrez
From: [email protected] To: ref_impl_java at chime.ucl.ac.uk; ref_impl_java at openehr.org Subject: RE: Adding a new method to the Archetype class Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:39:17 -0300 Thanks a lot Thomas, Sometimes I'm a little hard-to-understand things, thanks for the patience :D The problem I found in our implementation is that we are not saving the AOM paths in the RM nodes. Now I'm fixing this bug. For the issue with internal refs with no nodeID, do you have taken a look to this on the Archetype Editor?Rong: are you aware of this possible issue on the ADL parser? Best Regards,Pablo. Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:33:00 +0000 From: [email protected] To: ref_impl_java at openehr.org Subject: Re: Adding a new method to the Archetype class On 29/01/2010 06:03, pablo pazos wrote: Hi Thomas, I think I understand your point and Rong's too, but I have some questions to you both. If one constraint is reused inside the same archetype, all constraints with the same nodeID will be semantically equivalent, is this correct? So, in terms of semantics RM validation against an archetype node it will be the same if I check to one node or another (that have the same nodeID). I think this "post rm creation" kind of validation against an archetype is needed to make semantic interoperability work. May be my solution is not the optimal, but I think some kind of openehr protocol to do this is needed. the 'meaning' of a node is given by its path from the root, not just the node id. So you can have two nodes whose node_id is at0004 for 'systolic pressure', but the paths are as follows: /data/events[at0006]/data/items[at0004] - human readable form: /data/events[any event]/data/items[Systolic] /data/events[at0031]/data/items[at0004] - human readable form: /data/events[Postural change]/data/items[Systolic] you can see here two different data points, both having node_id at0004, but the paths tell you the real meaning For Rong's point I suppose that if I have a RM node that don't have a nodeID, this node must be a primitive node, because for ELEMENT, CLUSTER and ITEM_STRUCTURE, ENTRY, SECTION, etc, I think all had to have a nodeID. Correct me if I'm wrong. the rule is that a node_id is needed: on any node that is a child of a multiple-valued attribute (even if there is only one child for now) any nodes of a single-valued attribute, where there are multiple alternative nodes, and they can't otherwise be distinguished by RM type (e.g. DV_QUANTITY). - thomas Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100130/9c76ff01/attachment.html>
