Greetings, I have a single question about this particular requirement/idea: why?
Archetypes are model artefacts. That is it. They are supposed to describe domain models in a certain way. Behaviour or software that uses those models is a completely different thing. I can understand a constraint which references another one for defining a valid interval etc, but how on earth something like forcing a user for another entry is going to be handled during implementation? How would one express this in common formalisms like XML? I could understand a suggestion to use ADL to express rules regarding the archetypes, but that should be a formalism leaving in a separate space, which may be linked to archetypes, which only-contain-constraints-on-RM-types. Please keep behaviour our of models in ADL specifications. Regards Seref On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl> wrote: > Thanks, Thomas, for your reply. There is more to it then I initially > thought of. > > I am not very familiar with XPath. Best is to wait for more information > on the specs. > This is enough for now, to let customers give something to think about. > > Bert > > On 16-03-11 19:32, Thomas Beale wrote: >> >> Hi Bert, >> >> I hope to get back on the spec in the next couple of weeks. With respect >> to your specific question below, can you be a bit more precise? There >> are ways to express this kind of thing, but we need to be clear on >> distinguishing references to: >> >> ? ? * elements in the same archetype - as in a rule like: >> ? ? ? ? ? o /path/to/systolic/pressure/value > >> ? ? ? ? ? ? /path/to/diastolic/pressure/value >> ? ? * elements in data elsewhere in the same EHR like: >> ? ? ? ? ? o $date_of_birth:ISO8601_DATE ::= query(?ehr?, ?date_of_birth?) >> ? ? ? ? ? o this is still being finalised, so don't depend on it; >> ? ? ? ? ? ? however it is the left hand side that matters, i.e. >> ? ? ? ? ? ? $date_of_birth >> ? ? * environmental values, like >> ? ? ? ? ? o $current_date >> ? ? ? ? ? o $current_time >> >> Some of this is still being finalised, but the general syntax will look >> like Xpath and the object model will be what you would expect from that. >> >> - thomas >> >> On 10/03/2011 15:48, Bert Verhees wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am sorry, but I am to busy to read all the discussions on future >>> ADL-versions. >>> So, now I have a small question, which possible is already explained, >>> >>> Is it possible to write conditional constraints in future ADL? >>> >>> The question is about implementing care-protocol into an archetype. >>> >>> For example, if blood-pressure is> ?200, force to use another entry, for >>> example also look at heartbeat >>> >>> Is there any idea when this new specifications will be in final version? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Bert >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> openEHR-technical mailing list >>> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >>> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >>> >> * >> * >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
