I am in the middle of ADL/AOM 1.5 testing. There is a validity rule I defined in the current draft specficatich reads as fllows:
VSONIR: specialised archetype object node redefinition: if it exists, the node identifier of an object node in a specialised archetype must be redefined into its specialised form if either reference model type or occurrences of the immediate object constraint is redefined. Translation: change of occurrences or change of RM type (e.g. redefine into descendant type) requires a specialised at-code, e.g. at0002 --> at0002.1 or similar. In processing real archetypes and creating new templates, I am inclined to remove this rule, and say that the at-code only has to be specialised if the archetype author wishes to do so for semantic reasons OR if the parent node is redefined into /multiple/ children (e.g. a node at0013 meaning 'panel item' gets specialised into at0013.1 (serum sodium), at0013.2, (serum potassium), at0013.3, etc). I will experiment with removing this rule for the moment, and see if anything bad happens, but as far as I can see, nothing will. If we throw it away, it means that at-code specialisation really is only for semantic reasons, which would be nice and clean. I am interested in any opinions on this. By way of news: I am very close to a working implementation of AOM/ADL 1.5, and will release a new version of the ADL Workbench soon/ - thomas beale * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100520/fe32b4ba/attachment.html>
