Hi Abbas,

On 20/08/2011 05:19, Abbas Shojaee wrote:
> Hi
>
> OpenEHR is a great effort, but some questions remained with me yet. 
> The two level approach to Reference Model, is undertaken to help 
> physical implementation to remain apart and unchanged once domain 
> level knowledge changes. So why do we have other building blocks (e.g. 
> Demographic package or version etc.) built without using 
> this fundamental concept and formed fixed structures. (I know that a 
> link to an archetype exists that for example may further describe 
> PERSON or ORGANIZATION, but this does not provide the same level of 
> flexibility and coherence). Is there a specific reason? (except, 
>  that, elements of Demographic or versioning or .. are inherently 
> fixed and not changing)

well versioning (I assume you mean the classes here 
<http://www.openehr.org/uml/release-1.0.1/Browsable/_9_0_76d0249_1109326589721_134411_997Report.html>)
 
is more or less an infrastructure concept and not sensible to archetype 
in any way I can think of.

The demographic classes can be archetyped in the same way as EHR classes 
- you can see about 25 demographic archetypes on CKM 
<http://www.openehr.org/knowledge>. Can you elaborate on what you mean 
by these not being sufficiently flexible?

>
> On the other hand, why these objects do not follow archetype 
> structure? why they are not inherited from C_DEFINED_OBJECT?

well PERSON etc is ultimately a descandant of LOCATABLE, like all the 
EHR information classes, which is what makes it archetypable. Classes 
that descend from C_DEFINED_OBJECT are not information classes, they are 
the classes of the archetype model itself (i.e. a model of any archetype).

> another question: why DATA_VALUE and C_PRIMITIVE do not share their 
> basic capabilities via a common ancestor  ?

what capabilities would you expect them to share?

- thomas

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110820/ee1f17e8/attachment.html>

Reply via email to