Sebastian Garde wrote: > A few other functional properties come to mind such as "type" in > PARTY_RELATIONSHIP ... > Re "type": This is the same as the property "name" (because of the > type_validity invariant)
Yes, funny you should mention that, Sebastian, because I discovered yesterday that this is a bug in the spec. As is well known, the "name" must be unique among siblings within a container. This uniqueness is incompatible with the PARTY_RELATIONSHIP "type", because it would be common for a party to have multiple relationships of the same type. http://www.openehr.org/issues/browse/SPECPR-54 discusses this. I had to find a work around for it in my software. I chose to violate the type_validity invariant: when setting the type, I append a sequential number to it to set the name; and I compute the type by stripping the sequential number off the name. This ensures that the name is unique, while permitting multiple siblings of the same type. - Peter
