Heath Frankel wrote: > I believe this unique name rule should be reviewed and revoked. It is not > formally defined, as indicated in [ > http://www.openehr.org/issues/browse/SPECPR-54 ] its only stated in the > architecture overview in the context of paths which assumes name is the > unique within a container. I have other examples where it is desirable to get > multiple items with the same node-id but not the entire set and name is the > obvious collector. It also causes issues in renamed templated items which you > still want to allow more than one occurrence of that item.
I certainly agree with all of that Heath, having been frequently frustrated myself by this unique name rule. I thought that ADL 1.5 had resolved this issue a couple of years ago, hadn't it? We're still using ADL 1.4, though, so we are still stuck with the old rule, and I can't remember what the resolution was. If ADL 1.5 does revoke the unique name rule, then PARTY_RELATIONSHIP's type = name constraint could stay, in some form, depending on the outcome of this discussion about constraints on functions. - Peter
