Sorry, I was wrong, only the description element is removed from the Canonical Archetype Model Digest, the concept is included and so is the adl_version as indicated by Peter.
Heath From: Heath Frankel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 7 July 2010 10:41 AM To: 'For openEHR technical discussions' Subject: RE: proposed ADL 1.5 simplification The Canonical MD5 hash generated by the archetype editor is based on the definition and ontology attributes of the AOM, therefore the concept is not considered. Heath From: [email protected] [mailto:openehr-technical-bounces at openehr.org] On Behalf Of Sebastian Garde Sent: Tuesday, 6 July 2010 4:30 AM To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: Re: proposed ADL 1.5 simplification Hi Thomas, That makes a lot of sense in my opinion. Don't think it will be a major problem, at least in the Java space this particular change in ADL 1.5 is not worrying me as there are others that are a lot more fundamental. Not sure if this change would has an impact on the canonical MD5 hash generated by the Archetype Editor - ideally it would be the same for an archetype with or without the concept clause? Sebastian Thomas Beale wrote: In all archetypes that I have ever seen, the 'concept' at the top of the archetype is always the at-code of the root object constraint of the archetype. It would make sense to turn this into a function, and remove this clause from archetypes & templates. In fact, the concept code is by definition the node_id of the root object. In ADL 1.5, the root object must hae a node_id, according to the following rule: * VACCD: archetype definition code validity. The node identifier of the root node of the definition section must be the concept code mentioned earlier in the archetype. So... it seems logical to remove it from the archetype as data, and change the 'concept' property to a function which simply retrieves the node_id of the root object. It seems to be that this would be a useful change to put into ADL 1.5. Would this impact badly on tools and parsers? I think that most parsers could be left as they are, and so could most archetypes; the 'concept' clause would be sliently ignored in future. New ADL 1.5 archetypes being created would have no concept clause. - thomas beale _____ _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list openEHR-technical at openehr.org http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100707/1c56b73a/attachment.html>
