I'm confused as to whether the intention here was really URI, URL or URN? My understanding was that the use of DV_URI for term binding in archetypes was more in the vein of global identification of resources (more URN) rather than actually telling the software how to get to the resource (ala URL).
So I imagined that each EHR implementation would need to somehow have a lookup table from terminology resources -> actual terminology resource access mechanism. I mean, you can't actually use the terminology reference as an actual URL and do a GET on it? What is the return value? In the absence of an agreed terminology service layer definition within openEHR I can't see how that could possibly work. So that is why I thought that they would be more along the lines of ["ac0001"] = <[urn:fdc:nehta.gov.au:2010:ctppconcepts]> or (in URL format, but clearly not an actual web location) ["ac0001"] = <[http://nehta.gov.au/cttpconcepts]> So to answer Pablo's question > So, how can a machine know the difference or > equivalency of both URIs? (URIs are universal, but > not a unique way to identify a terminology or a subset). They are equivalent if the canonical form of the URI is equivalent. If the archetype is published globally, then the URI needs to globally unique and every implementation that wants to deal with the archetype will need to have a mechanism for turning the globally unique URI into an real actual terminology set. I don't think implementations are meant to be looking inside the URI to try to extract parameters, subsets etc. If they are then we are at least one entire specification short of implementing archetypes.. Andrew
