And again, why 'closed' and not occurrences {0}? Is really needed to
include a new reserved word when you already have the way of
expressing this?When you resolve a use_archetype while generating the instance you will put the data, not a reference to it. On the other hand, the model tells you that it has to be a reference (X_VERSIONED_OBJECT or LOCATABLE). Am I missing something here? what is the big difference in using use_archetype and use_template if both are archetypes (with the same AOM and using ADL 1.5)? 2011/5/5 Thomas Beale <thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> > > On 05/05/2011 11:26, Diego Bosc? wrote: > > Hello Thomas, > > Some questions about the example available at the SVN > (http://www.openehr.org/svn/knowledge2/TRUNK/archetypes/openEHR_examples/ehr_extract_template/Working/Templates/ehr_extract/openEHR-EHR_EXTRACT-EXTRACT.t_basic_acute.v1.adls) > > - What does the next snippet mean? > > use_archetype COMPOSITION[at0103, > openEHR-EHR-COMPOSITION.t_clinical_info_ds.v1] > allow_archetype COMPOSITION[at0103.1] closed > > > from the ADL 1.5 draft, pg 113: > > In addition to or instead of specifying slot fillers, it is possible in a > slot specialisation to narrow the > slot definition, or to close it. If fillers are specified, closing the slot > as well is typical. The latter is > done by including an overridden version of the archetype slot object itself, > with the ?closed? constraint > set, as in the following example: > > use_archetype > SECTION[org.openehr::openEHR-EHRSECTION.history_medical_surgical.v1] matches { > ??? /items matches { > ?? ???? use_archetype EVALUATION[at0002 = openEHR-EHR-EVALUATION.problem.v1] > ??? ??? allow_archetype EVALUATION[at0002.1] closed > ??? } > } > > Narrowing the slot is done with a replacement allow_archetype statement > containing a narrowed > set of match criteria. Since narrowing or closing is a change in definition, > the node identifier needs to > be specialised, if there is one. > > Note that in the software the syntax has changed slightly from the '=' to a > comma; the PDF needs to be updated for this. > > In the first case... that's a big archetype node identifier! Is that a > simplification of the includes syntax? > > have a look at the t_* source template examples here in the SVN repo, e.g. > > EXTRACT[at0000.1] matches { -- Discharge summary > /chapters[at0002]/items[at0003]/item matches { > use_archetype PERSON[at0100, > openEHR-DEMOGRAPHIC-PERSON.t_patient_ds.v1] > allow_archetype PERSON[at0100.1] closed > } > /chapters[at0002]/items[at0004]/item matches { > use_archetype ORGANISATION[at0101, > openEHR-DEMOGRAPHIC-ORGANISATION.healthcare_establishment.v1] > allow_archetype ORGANISATION[at0101.1] closed > } > /chapters[at0002]/items[at0005]/item matches { > use_archetype PERSON[at0102, > openEHR-DEMOGRAPHIC-PERSON.healthcare_professional.v1] > allow_archetype PERSON[at0102.1] closed > } > /chapters[at0001]/items matches { > GENERIC_CONTENT_ITEM[at0006.1] matches { > version_set_id existence matches {1} > item_status existence matches {1} > item_type existence matches {1} > item_type_version existence matches {1} > creation_time existence matches {1} > author existence matches {1} > } > } > /chapters[at0001]/items[at0006]/item matches { > use_archetype COMPOSITION[at0103, > openEHR-EHR-COMPOSITION.t_clinical_info_ds.v1] > allow_archetype COMPOSITION[at0103.1] closed > } > } > > This is how archetype slot filling is done in ADL 1.5. > > In the second one, what does 'closed' mean? Is the same that putting > the occurrences to 0..0? > If I remember correctly, use_archetype and allow_archetype are > equivalent in ADL 1.4. what is the difference between them? By the > way, isn't 'use_archetype' deprecated in ADL 1.5 (as can be seen on > page 42 of current draft)? > > allow_archetype defines a slot. If you see it in a template, it means that > the slot definition is being specialised (i.e. redefined in a conformant way) > use_archetype means: 'fill this slot with this archetype' > > - All content seems to be included by value now at the EXTRACT. > > top level objects are included by value in their respective chapters. The > demographic chapter typically contains some objects like HCP, HCF, Patient > etc. These are referenced from clinical data, which is found in a clinical > chapter. Including demographic data in the Extract is only necessary if there > is no agreed shared / central place to resolve identifiers found in clinical > information. If there is, it is not needed. I don't think the reference / > by-value semantics are different from that shown in the screenshot below > though. > > Following current (and I suppose outdated) Extract XSD schemas (as you > can see here http://prntscr.com/1tydt) everything is referenced. On > the specifications I see that there is 'item' of 'Any' type. Does that > mean that can be an object or a reference? > > probably you mean EXTRACT_CONTENT_ITEM.item : Any. This class is specialised > depending on the kind of Extract, into: > > OPENEHR_CONTENT_ITEM (openEHR extracts) where item is of type > X_VERSIONED_OBJECT and > GENERIC_CONTENT_ITEM (13606, CDA, other) where item is of type LOCATABLE > > - What is the difference between an EXTRACT_CHAPTER and a common FOLDER? > > > Chapters of type EXTRACT_CHAPTER are used to explicitly organise top-level > chunks of content in the Extract; the meaning of each chapter is > archetype/template-defined. EXTRACT_FOLDERs are there to represent FOLDER or > similar structures from the source system, i.e. to preserve such structures > in the Extract. So EXTRACT_CHAPTER is an artefact of an Extract, FOLDER is > (usually) an artefact of data being extracted. I think 13606 mixes these > functions up in one FOLDER class, which makes it difficult to say what a > Folder actually is in a 13606 Extract. > > - thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
