Thomas,
With respect to having some nodes with an at-code but nothing in the ontology, I would need to see some rules that can actually work for this. [HKF: ] To me the rules when a node ID is not required in the ontology are pretty simple: * a node is not of type LOCATABLE * a node is the root ITEM of an ITEM_STRUCTURE (e.g. items CLUSTER or item ELEMENT) The problem with not having a ontology item for the root ITEM of the ITEM_STRUCTURE is that we have nothing to use as the default name of that ITEM. This demonstrates how this level in the RM is semantically redundant. We also need to be careful about your removal of node IDs on single attributes such as description. In a template, a description maybe filled with an ITEM_STRUCTURE archetype. Therefore in an operational template, this description node must retain the archetype ID of the filler ITEM_STRUCTURE. Another case for optionally maintaining a node ID of single attributes is where it is desired to name this node. It is common in templates to rename the description to something like Medication description which results in an XML element with this name in a template data schema. Regards Heath -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100525/694f8e8f/attachment.html>
