I guess that's a reasonable statement. It depends on what part of your
infrastructure is responsible for ensuring that the data respect the RM,
but I get your point. In which case follow Ian's advice...
- thomas
On 04/04/2012 15:35, Diego Bosc? wrote:
> yeah, but you are fixing everything else, because this is an
> alternative that would be chosen as a whole (if defining code is
> local::at0003 and value is 2 then dv_coded_text.value should also be
> fixed to whatever value is decided)
>
> 2012/4/4 Thomas Beale<thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com>:
>> On 04/04/2012 13:29, Diego Bosc? wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but what I mean is this
>>
>> DV_ORDINAL [at0006] matches {
>> value matches {|2|}
>> symbol matches {
>> DV_CODED_TEXT matches {
>> value matches {???????????????????????} --
>> value is obligatory and I don't know what to put there
>> defining_code matches {[local::at0003]} --
>> +++
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
>> Diego,
>>
>> the value field is obligatory in the data, not in the archetype. You don't
>> have to constrain every RM element in an archetype, only what makes sense.
>>
>> - thomas
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20120404/995ab56d/attachment.html>
