On 27/10/2010 13:28, Erik Sundvall wrote: > Wow Tom! > > That was a fast, nice and somewhat unexpected answer, now we're just > awaiting the caption text to explain the image :-) > > You at least got me poking around for the archetypes, finding > http://www.openehr.org/svn/knowledge2/TRUNK/archetypes/openEHR_examples/link_archetypes/ > > - So tooling support already does exist, AWB for viewing & validation > and text editor for editing :-) (Or is there more?)
I don't think editing capability in the AWB will be out of the question in the near-ish future, but I don't have any bandwidth to go there right now.... > - What about the target range constraints, will string matching > expressions cover all likely use-cases? well I think string matching can work, but any lexical matching to achieve semantic purposes is always dodgy. I think we need to be more careful with how we do this, but I have not analysed it that much yet. > - This means a small modification (inherit LOCATABLE) to the LINK > class in the RM to make the reference to used archetype possible to > store in the EHR, right? yep - see the experimental RM schema file (you could diff it with the 102 file and you would see the addtions; they are also explained at the top). > (The "un-archetyped" LINK information storage is already supported I > believe, so data entered this way would be readable in the current > 1.0.2 RM, even if archetype info will not be present, is that correct?) yep - there would just be no at-code.* * - thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101027/3b0d47e3/attachment.html>
